The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Packet 2007 01 08AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2007 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 5:30 P.M. – EXECUTIVE SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM A. Discuss Litigation Concerning Halla Nursery Sign. 6:00 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. B. Discuss Process for the Comprehensive Plan Update (refer to staff report for item 1g). C. Key Financial Strategies. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) OATHS OF OFFICE D. Oaths of Office: Mayor Tom Furlong and Council Members Vicki Ernst and Bryan Litsey. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS E. Organizational Items: a. Designation of Official Newspaper b. Appointment of Acting Mayor CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1. a. Approval of Minutes - City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 11, 2006 - City Council Summary Minutes dated December 11, 2006 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated December 11, 2006 Receive CommissionMinutes: - Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated December 5, 2006. - Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated December 5, 2006. - Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated December 12, 2006 - Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated December 12, 2006 b. Acceptance of $1,050 Donation from KleinBank Chanhassen for the Senior Center Life-Long Learning Program. c. Koehnen/Yosemite Reconstruction, Project No. 07-01: Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids. d. 2007 Rehabilitation Project 07-02: Accept Feasibility Study; Call Public Hearing. e. 2007 Sealcoat Project No. 07-04: Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications. f. Lakeside 2nd Addition: 1) Approve Final Plat 2) Approve Development Contract g. Approve Consultant Contract for Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Element. h. Accept Donation from Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op for Veteran’s Monument. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. MUSA Expansion Project 06-05: Hold Assessment Hearing. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 3. Old Village Hall: a. Consider Amendment to Land Use Map and Rezoning. b. Approval of Lease with Seattle Sutton. 4. Amendment to City Code, Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 & 20 as a Result of Adoption of the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. 1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. 4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. 5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 11, 2006 The City Council held an executive session from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. to discuss the City Manager's Performance evaluation. Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 6:30 p.m.. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Greg Sticha, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman DISCUSSION OF 2007 BUDGET. Todd Gerhardt reviewed the procedure for approving the 2007 budget at the City Council meeting. Greg Sticha reviewed the highlights and changes for the 2007 budget. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on what changes had occurred between the preliminary levy and the levy being presented tonight. Todd Gerhardt noted that staff will continue to look for ways to decrease the $63,000 proposed to be taken from cash reserves. Mayor Furlong stated the key was to look at controllable costs in those decreases. Greg Sticha passed out a handout showing comparisons to other communities and the percentage increase in their levy. Councilman Peterson asked about how staff decides what is the appropriate amount of cash reserves. Councilman Lundquist asked what the levy increase/decrease would be if no cash reserves were used. Mayor Furlong noted that keeping the levy growth limited to the real growth , the city has been able to keep the levy level, but would continue to challenge staff to take the $63,000 out of the budget by decreasing expenses. Councilman Lundquist asked about per capita cost comparisons. Greg Sticha showed a graph depicting various cities by per capita costs. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 2006 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 Lundquist and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, Greg Sticha and Paul Oehme PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS. Public Present: Name Address Tom, Pam & Andy Devine 7640 South Shore Drive Jeff Grimm 435 Pond Promende Trevor & Tressa Haugdahl 4003 Highland Road, Minnetonka Jeremy & Debbie Scott 18528 Chennault Way, Eden Prairie Bill Fouks 88 Castle Ridge Court Lee Scholder 1521 Heron Drive, Shirley McGee 1950 Andrew Court Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive Ron Olsen 1140 Willow Creek Street Jim Sommers 8683 Chan Hills Drive No. Evan Vaala 18860 Harrogarb Drive, Eden Prairie Judi, Kelly & Adam Devitt 5246 Clear Spring Drive, Minnetonka Penni Ruben Lakewinds Natural Foods Katherine Roseth Lakewinds Natural Foods Mayor Furlong invited Ron Olsen, Shirley McGee, Jim Sommers, Bill Fouks, and Lee Scholder, members of the Environmental Commission, to join him in handing out the Environmental Excellence Awards to Lakewinds Natural Foods for their use of solar panels, socially- responsible reuse program, storewide recycling, and sustainable practices; Dan Rutledge with City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 2 Rutledge Construction Company for his use of cooking oil for construction equipment fuel; Shawn Siders and Brandon Mall with K. Hovnanian Homes for their use of energy efficient homes and best management construction practices; and Boy Scout Troop 346 for their storm drainage marking and environmental education outreach project. PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD TO COUNCILMAN BRIAN LUNDQUIST. Mayor Furlong presented Councilman Lundquist with the Maple Leaf Award for his 4 years of service on the City Council. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson 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 November 27, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 27, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 21, 2006 b. Resolution #2006-89: 2005 MUSA Project 06-05: Re-call Public Hearing. c. Approve Street Name Change from Lake Riley Road to Lakeview Road East. d. Approval of City Code Amendments: 1) Chapters 1 & 4 Regarding Fees 2) Chapter 18, Subdivisions Regarding Final Plats e. Custom Fab Solutions, LLC, 7600 Quattro Drive: Site Plan Approval for Expansion to Existing Building. f. Resolution #2006-90: Resolution Approving Adjustment to Engineering Fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL; LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK; APPLICANT ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC., INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE THE SITE IN PREPARATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW ENVIRONEMTNAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET, AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 3 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor Furlong asked staff to elaborate on what precautions are being taken for storm water runoff. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the duration of time to complete the excavation. After council comments the following motions were made. Resolution #2006-91: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The 50-scale plans should be revised to clearly depict the wetland boundary and wetland buffer areas. 2. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas should be protected by silt fence during grading. 3. The applicant should keep the goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region in mind as a plan is developed for the site and should work with staff to achieve these goals for this property. The Primary Zone boundary and the 40-foot setback should be shown on the plans. No grading is permitted within the first 20 feet of the 40-foot setback. 4. The erosion and sediment control plan should be aimed at minimizing the amount of exposed soil at any given time and preventing erosion of exposed soil. Sediment control (especially perimeter controls such as silt fence) should be viewed as a last resort. The applicant, the contractor and all subcontractors should recognize that one silt fence at the bottom of a large slope of exposed soil will not be sufficient to protect down gradient resources in even moderate precipitation or snowmelt events. To decrease the potential for discharge of sediment-laden water off-site, the applicant should prepare a plan for phasing the grading of the project. In general, the areas within 200 feet of wetlands should be graded first and permanently stabilized as soon as possible. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as soon as possible after grading to minimize the total amount of exposed soil on site. New areas should not be graded until after previously graded areas are stabilized. 5. Sediment & Erosion Control (SWPPP) Note 2.a.2 on Sheet C1.2 states that slopes steeper than 6:1 should be “cat tracked.” The applicant should take extra measures to ensure that this occurs because cat tracking has been shown to significantly decrease the potential for erosion on long, steep slopes. A detail should be provided for cat tracking. City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 4 6. The haul route between the Construction Staging Area and the Temporary Stockpile Area should be shown on the 50-scale plans. 7. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of grading in each disturbed area. If practical, a seed and blown-compost mix should be considered in lieu of dormant seed and straw mulch. The plans should be revised to call out erosion control blanket locations and to provide a detail for blanket installation. 8. Chanhassen Type II silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer (both 16.5-foot wetland buffers and the 20-foot “no grading” zone around the Primary Zone). The silt fence should be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. Orange tree protection fence should be installed upslope from the Type 2 silt fence around the wetland between Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 and Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 as added protection so equipment operators do not impact the wetland by driving heavy equipment through it. 9. The plans should be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details where available (e.g., Detail 5300 for silt fence; Detail 5301 for rock construction entrance). It appears that detail 3 on Sheet C1.4 is intended to depict the proposed checks within the temporary drainageways shown on Sheet C1.2. This should be clarified and the checks should be installed as often as is necessary to minimize the velocities of runoff in the drainageways. The plans should be revised to show a minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance. 10. In lieu of the proposed outlet pipes for the temporary sediment basins, temporary perforated risers and stable emergency overflows (EOFs) are needed; details should be included in the plan. The basins should be properly sized for the watershed areas, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins should provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipes should discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetlands and should be stabilized with riprap. 11. In the present design, water is routed into the wetland in the northeast corner of the site instead of into Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4. The grading in this area of the site should be revised to ensure that all discharge from disturbed areas is directed into either Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 or Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 prior to discharge into the wetland. 12. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 5 14. All temporary stockpiles shall be temporary seeded and mulched within 7 or 14 days, in accordance with the NPDES Phase II construction site permit. 15. Rock dissipation shall be installed at all pipe outlets within 24 hours of placement of the outlet pipes. 16. Slope lengths greater than 75 feet shall be broken up with a minimum 12-foot wide bench every 75 feet. 17. A minimum12-foot buffer area shall be maintained between the perimeter control and all stockpiles to provide access around the stockpiles for maintenance purposes. 18. Dewatering activities shall only be allowed after consulting with the on-site city inspector of the project to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit for dewatering activities. 19. Silt fence shall be placed parallel to contours. In locations where silt fence will cross contours, J-hooks shall be installed at 75-foot intervals. Silt fence shall not be staked on site by scaling off the proposed plan, but shall be staked by the survey crew taking shots in the field. The applicant shall contact SWCD staff prior to silt fence installation so staking on site can be reviewed to ensure compliance with this request. 20. Drainage swales and ditch cuts shall be employed during mass grading to maintain a positive flow of stormwater to the temporary basins. 21. During final grading of the site, the height of the berm over the sanitary sewer shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements may be required. 22. The developer is required to televise the section of sanitary sewer over which grading operations will occur before and after construction to determine if the site grading damaged the pipe. 23. ISD 112 shall be responsible for repairing any sections of sanitary sewer damaged during construction. 24. The developer must place sanitary sewer manhole sections on the existing manhole to bring the top of manhole up to the existing grade. 25. No more than eight inches of rings is allowed on the sanitary sewer manhole.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 6 AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD; APPLICANT BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS: A. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP); B. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL; C. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUBHOUSE/MUSEUM BUILDING AND 11 STORAGTE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 150,000 SQ. FT.); AND D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR WITH A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE STORM WATER POND WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK PRIMARY ZONE. Public Present: Name Address Jon Day 8229 Stone Creek Drive Mark Zitzewitz 1930 Bluff View Court Laurie Tofteland 8325 Stone Creek Drive Bruno Silikowski 3615 Zircon Lane North, Plymouth Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Commissioner Peterson asked about the lack of windows on the club house building. Councilman Lundquist asked staff to point out where the nearest houses would be located in relation to this development. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the capacity of the pond. The applicant, Bruno Silikowski clarified the issues of architectural details on the buildings, the distance to the nearest house, screening, hours of operation, wetlands, and security. Mayor Furlong opened the meeting for public comment. Jon Day, 8229 Stone Creek Drive asked for clarification on the conservation easement and noted the biggest concern for the neighborhood is the impact on their property values. Laurie Tofteland, 8325 Stone Creek Drive showed photographs of the views from her property looking at where this project will be built. Mark Zitzewitz, 1930 Bluff Creek Court expressed concern with noise and hours of operation and asked that the City Council consider imposing use restrictions and noise restrictions on this facility. After council questions and comments, the following motions were made. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Rezoning of the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 7 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a Variance to locate the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek primary zone, in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans shall be revised to show the correct Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. 2. The applicant shall develop a restoration plan for the upland areas within the primary zone that includes native plants for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before installation. 3. The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 4. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. 6. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the two buildings immediately adjacent to Audubon Road shall require a separate site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 12 buildings (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 8 1. Additional windows or doors must be incorporated in the clubhouse eastern building elevation to comply with the 50 percent transparency requirement. 2. Water Resource Coordinator conditions: a. The plans shall be revised to show how the water routed through Wetland Area B will be conveyed to the proposed stormwater pond. b. The plans shall be revised to show only non-exempt wetlands. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas to be preserved shall be protected by silt fence during grading. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c. The plans shall be revised to show the correct primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. d. A conditional use permit and variance shall be obtained prior to alteration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. e. Drainage and utility easements over the stormwater pond and areas necessary for pond access (including an easement over the main drive aisle through the site from Audubon Road to the pond) shall be dedicated to the City prior to recording the site plan. The parking areas and drive aisles shall be swept each spring to prevent sand from leaving the site. Documentation of sweeping activity shall be submitted to the City annually. f. The plans shall be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details for stormwater infrastructure and erosion and sediment control, including 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301 and 5302A. A detail for the proposed temporary perforated riser pipe shall also be included in the plans. g. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) is needed; a detail shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins shall provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipe shall discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetland and shall be stabilized with riprap. h. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 9 i. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. j. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. k. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. l. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the site and approved by City staff prior to issuing a permit. The SWPPP shall include a provision that requires temporary seeding of stockpiles if left exposed for more than 14 days. m. The plans shall be revised to include energy dissipation on all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation. n. The plans shall be revised to replace hay bale curbside inlet controls with Wimco-type inlet controls. A detail shall be provided. The controls shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. o. All perimeter controls shall follow the City’s specifications. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the City and the SWCD prior to grading. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants. b. 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. c. Yellow curbing and no parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and signs to be installed. d. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. e. 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. City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 10 f. Submit radius turn dimensions to City engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4. Building Official Conditions: a. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. d. Every building containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected to a public or private sewer (MSPC 4715.310). No building sewer shall be less than 4 inches in diameter (MSPC 4715.2310). Building drain must be by gravity (MSPC 4715.2430). The distance between cleanouts in horizontal piping shall not exceed 50 feet for 3-inch or less in size and not over 100 feet for 4-inch and over in size (MSPC 4715.1010. 5. Forester conditions: a. All existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road shall be preserved and protected with tree preservation fencing during construction. Any City boulevard tree that dies or is removed will be required to be replaced. b. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 82 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 23 overstory trees along the northwest property line buffer yard. d. The slope along the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be seeded with an approved native seed mix. e. Plant selections for landscape requirements shall incorporate native species for buffer yard and parking lot landscaping f. Increase the buffer planting along the westerly and northwesterly portions of the site. Buffer may include berming, landscaping or fencing. 6. Engineering Conditions: City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 11 a. The grading plan must be revised to show proposed pavement grades for the driveway access to the northern office/warehouse. b. The grading plan must show proposed pavement grades. c. Pavement grades must not exceed 10%. d. The private streets within the development must be constructed to a nine-ton design. e. An additional spot elevation must be shown on the south end of the storage building immediately west of the northern office/warehouse to ensure positive drainage. f. Note the proposed rim and invert elevation of the storm sewer located at the driveway intersection south of bore hole location #3. g. The developer must coordinate with City staff to ensure that pond maintenance and emergency vehicles will be able to access the gated area. h. The width of the drive aisle southeast of the pond must be minimum 26 feet wide in addition to the proposed parallel parking stalls. i. If fire code permits, staff recommends that the private watermain be six-inch diameter for water quality purposes. j. The City’s construction observer shall be present for all sanitary sewer and watermain testing to ensure that the proposed connections to the City facilities are in conformance with engineering standards. k. The developer shall pay for the inspection bills and submit a $5,000.00 security to ensure payment of these bills. 7. The retaining wall shall follow the standards for retaining walls incorporated in the subdivision regulations. The applicant shall also investigate the terracing of walls over eight feet in height. (Visibility of the walls to the west is a factor to determine the need for terracing.)” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. ADOPTION OF THE 2007 BUDGET AND LEVY. Greg Sticha presented the staff report on the 2007 budget and levy. Todd Gerhardt thanked the City Council members, department heads and city staff for the time and effort put into the budget process. After council comments the following motion was made. Resolution #2006-92: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adopt the 2007 budget and levy in the amount of $9,575,778; and Resolution #2006-93: to City Council Summary - December 11, 2006 12 approve the 2007 CIP as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. After reading the list of accomplishments of Mr. Gerhardt for 2006, the following motion was made. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve increasing Mr. Gerhardt's total compensation in 2007 by 4.5% above that which he received in 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson read an email from Councilwoman Tjornhom thanking Councilman Lundquist for his 4 years of service on the City Council. Councilman Peterson and Mayor Furlong also wished him well. Mayor Furlong provided an update from the National League of Cities conference that he and Mr. Gerhardt attended in Reno, Nevada. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt thanked Councilman Lundquist for his leadership and dedication over the past 4 years. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2006 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 Lundquist and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, Greg Sticha and Paul Oehme PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Good evening and welcome to everybody here joining us in the council chambers, as well as those joining us at home. We're glad that you joined us. At this time I would ask members of the council if there are any modifications or additions to the agenda. If not then we'll proceed with the agenda as distributed. We've got some presentations to do this evening under public announcements so we'll do that first. Let me go down in the front here and have other people join me as appropriate. PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS. Public Present: Name Address Tom, Pam & Andy Devine 7640 South Shore Drive Jeff Grimm 435 Pond Promende Trevor & Tressa Haugdahl 4003 Highland Road, Minnetonka Jeremy & Debbie Scott 18528 Chennault Way, Eden Prairie Bill Fouks 88 Castle Ridge Court Lee Scholder 1521 Heron Drive, Shirley McGee 1950 Andrew Court Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive Ron Olsen 1140 Willow Creek Street Jim Sommers 8683 Chan Hills Drive No. Evan Vaala 18860 Harrogarb Drive, Eden Prairie City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 2 Judi, Kelly & Adam Devitt 5246 Clear Spring Drive, Minnetonka Penni Ruben Lakewinds Natural Foods Katherine Roseth Lakewinds Natural Foods Mayor Furlong: We're going to start this evening with Environmental Excellence Awards. These are awards that are presented annually by the City of Chanhassen in recognition of environmental improvements and stewardship throughout our county. The awards are designed not only to recognize achievement but also to communicate new ideas and encourage other members of our city to make a difference in their world. I'd like to invite some of the members of our Environmental Commission to come up and join me here. I think they're here with us this evening. Ron Olsen, Shirley McGee, Jim Sommers, Bill Fouks, and Lee Scholder. Good evening everybody. The first award here I'd like to present and invite up Christine Nelson. Is Christine here? This evening. She wasn't about to make it? Was somebody else here? Why don't you come on up. You're with Lakewinds? Penni Ruben: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. It's not surprising to many, why don't you stand here so people at home can see us. It's not surprising to many that Lakewinds Natural Foods is here receiving an Environmental Excellence Award. Their business is based upon organic, environmentally friendly products but Lakewinds has gone above and beyond the usual expectations for such a business. Among the many sustainable practices that sets their business apart are the extensive reuse and recycling programs. They collect cell phones, reading glasses, plastic bags, batteries from customers. The process by which the store uses to heat generated by refrigeration compressors for pre-heating their water, and a number of others. Perhaps the most impressive commitment is the installation of 57 solar panels on it's roof this year. These panels product a tremendous amount of energy and Lakewinds hopes that they will be able to produce all of their needed energy and sell back any excess to the utility company. They were installed this summer and has already contributed an estimated, stopped an estimated 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide. So on behalf of the City of Chanhassen to Lakewinds Natural Foods, congratulations. Appreciate your efforts. Penni Ruben: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: At this time I'd like to invite Dan Rutledge to come forward from Rutledge Construction Company. Good evening. Thanks for coming. We're honoring Rutledge Construction Company this evening for using cooking oil as construction equipment fuel. A friend told Dan about vehicles running on vegetable oil. Apparently an intriguing idea and after doing some research he decided to try it on the company's Bobcat. As the story goes, he bought a 5 gallon pail of vegetable oil. Poured it into the machine. Ran great. Apparently didn't smell too bad, so that's good, and now you're running other equipments, skidders and other things on the oil as well. Okay, so congratulations Dan on the award. Dan Rutledge: Thank you. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 3 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Shawn Siders and Brandon Mall. Are they here? Okay, K. Hovnanian Homes. Good evening. Good to see you without a site plan. K. Hovnanian Homes is being recognized this evening for energy efficient homes and best management construction practices. They have incorporated many of the best management practices into the construction process and the company strives to exceed general requirements of practices. Each home built within Chanhassen at Liberty on Bluff Creek earns an Energy Star designation for energy efficiency. By working with the Environmental Protection Agency, K. Hovnanian Homes was able to design and construct homes that exceed Minnesota Building Code, eliminate unnecessary materials and enhance the performance of the home's insulation. The company also teams with trade partners who employ environmentally friendly practices such as their lumber supplier who recycles all the scrap wood generated on the site. So on behalf of the City of Chanhassen, congratulations. Thank you. I think we have some members from Boy Scout Troop 346 here. Why don't you guys come on up. Boy Scout Troop 346 is being recognized for their storm drain marking and environmental education outreach program. The boys in Scout Troop 346 all enjoy swimming, especially in Lotus Lake. This year they decided they wanted to do something to help the lake and keep it clean and after talking about what a good project might be, they agreed that educating the public about where the water goes when it enters the storm drain would be a good place to start. They contacted the City and worked with staff about storm drain marking. The project included cleaning the curb area around each storm drain in the project area and then attaching markers to the structures that read, drains to wetlands. Dump no waste. They also distributed door hangers that included education on water quality and what impacts the public might have on the health of local lakes. It was a big job covering 150 storm drains and many neighborhoods. So boys, on behalf of the City of Chanhassen, thank you. We appreciate your efforts. Congratulations. Thank you all. PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD TO COUNCILMAN BRIAN LUNDQUIST. Mayor Furlong: Tonight is the last meeting for Councilman Brian Lundquist and so this evening we're going to present him with our City's Maple Leaf Award. It is a pleasure to honor Brian this evening for his service on the City Council these last 4 years. Brian, as a member of the council you have demonstrated your dedication and commitment to the Chanhassen residents and businesses by your words and by your actions. You provided strong leadership on the council in pursuing our strategic initiatives and were committed to lowering property taxes while limited overall spending growth. You did this by applying your business experiences to our city government. We're going to miss your attention to details, especially with regards to spending and checks being issued. And your focus on finding opportunities to balance the need for new infrastructure and city services within our budget limits. Using your business approach and applying private industry best practices, you helped strengthen our financial and operating polices, and keep our budgets in line over these last 4 years. During his term Brian was instrumental and provided leadership on many projects and policies that have improved our city and the high quality of life that we enjoyed, and still do. Some of these projects and policies include the completion of the new Chanhassen library. New commercial and residential developments throughout the city. Construction of the city's water treatment plant. Construction of City Center Park. Miles of new and reconstructed roads and trails and expanded and refurbished parks throughout the city and developing sound fiscal policies and budgets in City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 4 difficult financial times. Brian, you should be very proud of the service that you have provided Chanhassen and all that you've accomplished. We sincerely thank you for your outstanding leadership service and dedication to the City of Chanhassen. We are going to miss you and your talents and skills and the fun times we had together. Thanks Brian. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson 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 November 27, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 27, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 21, 2006 b. Resolution #2006-89: 2005 MUSA Project 06-05: Re-call Public Hearing. c. Approve Street Name Change from Lake Riley Road to Lakeview Road East. d. Approval of City Code Amendments: 1) Chapters 1 & 4 Regarding Fees 2) Chapter 18, Subdivisions Regarding Final Plats e. Custom Fab Solutions, LLC, 7600 Quattro Drive: Site Plan Approval for Expansion to Existing Building. f. Resolution #2006-90: Resolution Approving Adjustment to Engineering Fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Given the question from the audience, we will take public comment on the items under new business. Items 2 and 3. The Chanhassen High School and the Autobahn Metroplex, so if you're interested in talking about that, we will take some limited comment on that. But if there's anything else you'd like to address the council, please come forward at this time. To the podium. State your name and address. Jon Day: My name's Jon Day, 8229 Stone Creek Drive. Chanhassen and I'd like to address the council and the Mayor on the Autobahn Metroplex. Mayor Furlong: Why don't we take that up when we're talking on that staff report. I'll save time for public comment at that time. Then it will just be more consistent with the conversation at that time. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 5 Jon Day: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thanks Jon. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none we'll move on. CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL; LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK; APPLICANT ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC., INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE THE SITE IN PREPARATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW ENVIRONEMTNAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET, AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, and members of the City Council. This item did appear before the Planning Commission twice. The subject site located on Lyman, south of the railroad tracks… The applicant is Independent School District 112. This item appeared before the Planning Commission twice. Based on some additional information that was requested. Ultimately the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the…6 to 1. When this item appeared before the Planning Commission the first time, there was an issue regarding potential… that was presented to the Planning Commission and Planning Commission concurred with staff's interpretation of the bluff. Or non-bluff… The definition was put in…and I'm not going to go through that unless there's a specific request from the council to do that…the issue at hand which is the grading permit…and some comments from the neighbor that… So the first step would be the project itself and grading. I'm going to give, the overall site plan has not been approved. I just wanted to put this up for a better understanding of the site. It's again Lyman Boulevard and the access points. So because of the size of the building, over 400,000 square feet, it did require an environmental assessment. Some of the issues that were brought by the neighbors were…can the building be located somewhere else. If you recall the school district was looking…the city, they were looking for a secondary school and they hadn't decided whether or not this site would be a high school or not. It wasn't until they did their study and then went out to finalize it that it would actually be a high school site. Being that it's a high school site, and they want…drove the amount of design…regarding location of the access points. Audubon Road. Chaska…sub station…The other place for access coming off of the Chaska Industrial Park, making that a T intersection…so that's kind of the location, access points and the drive. The parking lot location and then the building itself. In looking at the overall grading, up to the…as indicated in the staff report, there is a gas line that runs through the property also…material will be stored on site. I also wanted to point out in the staff report that because they are using a walk out on the back side of the building…looking at the grading footprint itself. This project will come back before the Planning Commission for the overall site design and the specifics regarding lighting, parking lot and those sort of things…the question was raised regarding the amount of grading, but there's still a 70 foot change based on this building being a walkout to the bottom of the creek, so they are using the grade itself so it's not like it changes… So the grading itself, with the… So with that, I'll move forward to the environmental assessment… There are three main issues that were raised in the Environmental Assessment. The majority of that's regarding traffic and when this project comes in for site plan review, we'll be attaching some conditions regarding the circulation of traffic itself, regarding signalization…at Audubon and…so that's one of the issues that was… The other was the wetland impact. Right now with the grading they're not impacting wetlands… City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 6 but based on the potential environmental impact…so we are recommending that no environmental impact statement is required. So with that we put a resolution in the packet to that effect, requiring no environmental impact statement… So with that, starting on page 8, the recommendations for the two motions. Approve the Negative Declaration. Motion A. And you would also be approving…and B which would be the approval of…regarding the Interim Use Permit for the… So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson, I guess with regard to storm water runoff and the amount of grading and such like that, what precautions are place? I saw some things in the staff report with regard to, we've had some history in the past where we have developers start the grading before all the improvements are there to manage the storm water when we get the storms, and so I guess the, especially with the wetland and Bluff Creek corridor to the east of this site, what precautions are put in place here from storm water measures. Kate Aanenson: We're over sizing the temporary basins, and that's the only…so that these temporary basins will be super sized to manage that catastrophic event. And then also make sure that we've got… Mayor Furlong: Such as silt fencing and those sorts of things. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and also the row fencing. Some of… Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we'll work with the applicant or inspect the site. Kate Aanenson: Yeah… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here? Anything that, Mr. Pomeroy anything you want to add or others? Jay Pomeroy: Good evening Mayor and councilmen. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Jay Pomeroy: I am Jay Pomeroy with Anderson-Johnson…so if you have any questions, we can certainly answer them. The traffic consultant as well… Mayor Furlong: Traffic, obviously there were two things brought up there. I think one was during construction traffic issues, as well as post construction. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So are we comfortable there that they've got plans in place to. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and keeping the streets clean and those sort of issues that engineering will be monitoring. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 7 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for the applicant at all from the council? Okay. We had two evenings of Planning Commission hearings on this. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And discussions so we're not going to have a formal public hearing here but I guess, what we have as a council we've received the verbatim minutes of those meetings so if anybody, if there's any new information, if somebody would like to make sure the council's aware of on this, we'd be happy to take some public comment now. But again we received and reviewed the information at the Planning Commission as well as some of the emails that residents sent to staff raising questions as well. So if anybody would like to address the council on any new matters here on this item. Okay, very good. Thank you. With that, if there's no other questions for staff or the applicant at this time, thoughts. Discussion. Members of the council. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, one quick question. Probably either for Kate or the applicant. Kate, what do you expect, or Mr. Pumper, what's the duration of time that you'll have the excavation? When do you plan to start? When do you believe it will be substantially complete? Jay Pomeroy: I'm almost Mr. Pumper. This Phase I, or this first part of the project we anticipate starting grading in the next few weeks…until about mid-March, as I understand. And then the next phase will start. We'll be back in front of you in March with a full site and landscaping, lighting. The whole ball of wax. That part of the process will take place right after this first phase, so once we start it's going to continue until the school opens in 2009. Fall of 2009. Construction will pretty much complete in May of '09. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So you're 2, a little over 2 years? 26, 27 months. Something like that? Okay. Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Back to your question Brian, I think too, when we look at the site plan and there's more construction activity, we'll probably re-evaluate access points and if that's adequate. Right now what we're addressing for access would just be for the grading. And once they get the equipment on, it will stay on site so there won't be quite as much, I mean they don't intend to export a lot but I think when we look at the next iteration of the site plan, there will be a lot more construction traffic but I think we'll have to look a little more carefully at. For access. Mayor Furlong: Thoughts. Comments. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think that the staff and Planning Commission certainly did due diligence on it for the amount of time they spent on it and presenting. I certainly can't argue anything different than that so I would certainly recommend approval. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 8 Councilman Lundquist: I would concur and I think, you know this is a big first step and as we've received some comment, it will have a big impact and as you talked about before Mr. Mayor and me and my details, 350,000 cubic yards is what they're talking about, which is a little over a million and a half wheelbarrows full. But maybe to put it more in perspective, if you imagine the size of a football field being 100 yards by 50 yards wide, that's approximately a football field by 70 feet high for a pile of dirt, so as we're driving around in that area over the next 2 years, we're going to see a pretty dramatic change to the landscape out there and I think it's important and encumbent upon us to make sure that we do keep up the erosion control and a lot of the stuff that's out there in that wetland because 350,000 cubic yards is a lot of dirt to be pushing around and it will have impacts that we, if we don't stay on top of it, it will anyway but certainly will change things a lot so, just ask that we stay on top of that and people should be prepared I think to see a lot flatter ground out there in that big, big pile of dirt but am in favor of moving forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And I think, you know as Councilman Lundquist as you just explained or painted the picture, the whole reason to make sure that we're aware and that staff is aware and confident in terms of some of the issues if there is store problems and such, and we've got, as a city we've got a great working relationship with the school district. We've had a number of meetings already and I assume that those are going to continue throughout the process and I'm confident that they'll be able to work with us and we'll work with them and in the end it's going to be a new high school. A Chanhassen High School that everybody's going to be proud of so, but these are details that we need to work with and I'm glad that everybody is working together and as much as the goal is to get the new high school there, we need to focus on the details and get it done right too, so I concur with your thoughts there. And to Councilman Peterson, I'm glad that the staff and the school district, their advisors and their Planning Commission are spending the time that they are to get into the details because it saves us time. I am supportive of this. I think the questions raised have been answered satisfactory and I think it's, I would move to, that we move forward with this this evening. The motion starts on page 8 of the staff report. 175 in the electronic copy. Is there a motion? We have two before us this evening requested. Councilman Peterson: To that end Mr. Mayor, I would move and recommend that the City Council approve resolution of negative declaration. City Council also approve Interim Use Permit with conditions 1 through 25, subject to the findings of fact as supported by staff this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2006-91: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 9 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The 50-scale plans should be revised to clearly depict the wetland boundary and wetland buffer areas. 2. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas should be protected by silt fence during grading. 3. The applicant should keep the goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region in mind as a plan is developed for the site and should work with staff to achieve these goals for this property. The Primary Zone boundary and the 40-foot setback should be shown on the plans. No grading is permitted within the first 20 feet of the 40-foot setback. 4. The erosion and sediment control plan should be aimed at minimizing the amount of exposed soil at any given time and preventing erosion of exposed soil. Sediment control (especially perimeter controls such as silt fence) should be viewed as a last resort. The applicant, the contractor and all subcontractors should recognize that one silt fence at the bottom of a large slope of exposed soil will not be sufficient to protect down gradient resources in even moderate precipitation or snowmelt events. To decrease the potential for discharge of sediment-laden water off-site, the applicant should prepare a plan for phasing the grading of the project. In general, the areas within 200 feet of wetlands should be graded first and permanently stabilized as soon as possible. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as soon as possible after grading to minimize the total amount of exposed soil on site. New areas should not be graded until after previously graded areas are stabilized. 5. Sediment & Erosion Control (SWPPP) Note 2.a.2 on Sheet C1.2 states that slopes steeper than 6:1 should be “cat tracked.” The applicant should take extra measures to ensure that this occurs because cat tracking has been shown to significantly decrease the potential for erosion on long, steep slopes. A detail should be provided for cat tracking. 6. The haul route between the Construction Staging Area and the Temporary Stockpile Area should be shown on the 50-scale plans. 7. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of grading in each disturbed area. If practical, a seed and blown-compost mix should be considered in lieu of dormant seed and straw mulch. The plans should be revised to call out erosion control blanket locations and to provide a detail for blanket installation. 8. Chanhassen Type II silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer (both 16.5-foot wetland buffers and the 20-foot “no grading” zone around the Primary City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 10 Zone). The silt fence should be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. Orange tree protection fence should be installed upslope from the Type 2 silt fence around the wetland between Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 and Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 as added protection so equipment operators do not impact the wetland by driving heavy equipment through it. 9. The plans should be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details where available (e.g., Detail 5300 for silt fence; Detail 5301 for rock construction entrance). It appears that detail 3 on Sheet C1.4 is intended to depict the proposed checks within the temporary drainageways shown on Sheet C1.2. This should be clarified and the checks should be installed as often as is necessary to minimize the velocities of runoff in the drainageways. The plans should be revised to show a minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance. 10. In lieu of the proposed outlet pipes for the temporary sediment basins, temporary perforated risers and stable emergency overflows (EOFs) are needed; details should be included in the plan. The basins should be properly sized for the watershed areas, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins should provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipes should discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetlands and should be stabilized with riprap. 11. In the present design, water is routed into the wetland in the northeast corner of the site instead of into Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4. The grading in this area of the site should be revised to ensure that all discharge from disturbed areas is directed into either Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 or Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 prior to discharge into the wetland. 12. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. All temporary stockpiles shall be temporary seeded and mulched within 7 or 14 days, in accordance with the NPDES Phase II construction site permit. 15. Rock dissipation shall be installed at all pipe outlets within 24 hours of placement of the outlet pipes. 16. Slope lengths greater than 75 feet shall be broken up with a minimum 12-foot wide bench every 75 feet. 17. A minimum12-foot buffer area shall be maintained between the perimeter control and all stockpiles to provide access around the stockpiles for maintenance purposes. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 11 18. Dewatering activities shall only be allowed after consulting with the on-site city inspector of the project to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit for dewatering activities. 19. Silt fence shall be placed parallel to contours. In locations where silt fence will cross contours, J-hooks shall be installed at 75-foot intervals. Silt fence shall not be staked on site by scaling off the proposed plan, but shall be staked by the survey crew taking shots in the field. The applicant shall contact SWCD staff prior to silt fence installation so staking on site can be reviewed to ensure compliance with this request. 20. Drainage swales and ditch cuts shall be employed during mass grading to maintain a positive flow of stormwater to the temporary basins. 21. During final grading of the site, the height of the berm over the sanitary sewer shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements may be required. 22. The developer is required to televise the section of sanitary sewer over which grading operations will occur before and after construction to determine if the site grading damaged the pipe. 23. ISD 112 shall be responsible for repairing any sections of sanitary sewer damaged during construction. 24. The developer must place sanitary sewer manhole sections on the existing manhole to bring the top of manhole up to the existing grade. 25. No more than eight inches of rings is allowed on the sanitary sewer manhole.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD; APPLICANT BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS: A. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP); B. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL; C. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUBHOUSE/MUSEUM BUILDING AND 11 STORAGTE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 150,000 SQ. FT.); AND City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 12 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR WITH A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE STORM WATER POND WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK PRIMARY ZONE. Public Present: Name Address Jon Day 8229 Stone Creek Drive Mark Zitzewitz 1930 Bluff View Court Laurie Tofteland 8325 Stone Creek Drive Bruno Silikowski 3615 Zircon Lane North, Plymouth Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on November 21st. The Planning Commission recommended 5-0 to approve the project. One issue, a couple issues that were brought up. Maybe…show you where we are. Off of Audubon Road, and just south of General Mills. The railroad tracks would be the southern boundary. The application is a permitted use in the district…one of the issues that were brought up. One was the security…by neighboring residents. A storage built facility that will be condominium type owners so it doesn't… A second issue that was brought up is you have an existing wetland…and based on the city's estimation in reviewing the plans, we believe that this project itself, with creation of the storm water pond we're creating… And then the third issue was the screening of the project, and that we are asking for additional landscaping and… So again this is a permitted use in the district so they have a right to proceed, so with that we believe that they meet the criteria for the site plan and the conditional use… So with that I'll start out talking about exactly what the use is. It's 12 storage buildings on the site. And then two additional buildings that would be…so there'd be 12 buildings. 11 storage buildings… The proposed operation from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. Again in the IOP District there is a restriction, we do… We did talk about the two building pads. We don't know what those would be right now. They are not subject for site plan review right now, so when they do, something does get proposed on those two sites, it will be back before the Planning Commission for public hearing and then ultimately for your approval for the site plan. And then again, the project is encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District and we'll talk about that again in just a minute. The retaining walls, there are some retaining walls and we've identified those on the bottom of the staff report, page 4. There was some question about the…more stability. I think we're also looking at some, when they're taller and then…so we have put a recommendation in there to work, to terrace those walls where, between the stages so maybe break them up to 8 feet, so that would be our last condition… So there are retaining walls based on the topography itself. Mayor Furlong: Can you show on the plan where those are? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mayor Furlong: There's two of them aren't there? City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 13 Kate Aanenson: The biggest one's on the back side of the buildings here. So this is…so that would be in this area here…retaining wall here. There's also a large retaining wall on the side. The site is dropping. If you…coming down Audubon off of General Mills, there's a significant grade change. Councilman Peterson: So Kate, sorry to interrupt but give me a sense as to who's going to visualize that wall? Are the residents to the west? Kate Aanenson: No. I'm sorry, you can't really see it. It's internal. Mayor Furlong: Which one? The one on the east or the one. Kate Aanenson: Well most of these are inside, on the internal side because you'll have the buildings blocked. I think we looked…the architecture. We did…visibility on the architecture but for the most part, they won't probably be seen from outside. If you going up Audubon… I'm on page 5 of the staff report. There was wetlands identified…there is no wetland impact. There is, if you look at the variance is, it's regarding the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So there's… So let me talk a little bit about the architecture of the buildings themselves. Again…material samples over there but…clubhouse building. And then one of the issues that we addressed on the extras that they have…looking at the short end of the building. So this would be the internal side. The external side of that…They also have cupola's so they look for residential in appearance. Again meeting the standards, architectural standards…again meeting the architectural standards. I've got the color pallets over here if anybody's interested in that but again, trying to mix up some of the colors and some of the… The building height is about 30 feet. Again this district does allow up to 50 feet so with the change in grade, you're not going to…on top, up here but a majority of the… And then lighting itself, which could be additional impacts, they'll be wall packs on the building… One of the issues the neighbors have…some additional landscaping so the applicant is working to put some additional landscaping on this end right here, and… So I'll take a minute now and talk about the conditional use, unless you have questions on the architecture or site plan. Councilman Peterson: Kate the only question I had was on the club house. When I looked at it the first time I was surprised at the lack of windows. Was there, is there a rationale for that? I mean the club house you would assume you want something brighter but again not knowing what the concept of club house for that is. Kate Aanenson: It meets the fenestration…but I'll let the applicant… Again we did a compliance table…the overlay district and if you can see, this is the primary line right here. This blue line right here. And the secondary line here. So the Overlay District itself is…there actually is activity occurring within the overlay district, and we have that…in almost every project we've done… In this circumstance we are putting in these storm water pond…spending a lot of time, walking the site… Working with the applicant's engineer as determined by the Water Resources Coordinator…storm water itself. We went through a lot of designs…so it's not impacting our wetland. It's the primary corridor itself. …primary district before. If you remember Pioneer Pass, we had a…sewer line that was pinching there that we wanted to be able to get to the pond without impacting, without interrupting… Again looking at the Bluff Creek ordinance, the City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 14 overlay district itself. With each project that comes in, we look at how to extract it. If you go back…overlay district…we look at each project incrementally. How can we get the overlay district, and this project itself was a condition of approval, is that we get… Mayor Furlong: Excuse me for interrupting. Can you point on the map where that is. Kate Aanenson: So that is the rest of this area here. There is some upland area down here so this area here, all in green, following this line would be the overlay district that would be now…no disruption to that. Typically what we do…donation to the city or extraction to the city. So in looking at that, we felt a reasonable condition for the variance was extracting that, so there was some discussion about the cost… So again looking at the valuation of the pond itself and… Councilman Lundquist: Where's the delineation of the wetland? Is that. Kate Aanenson: This is the black line. Now there was a piece here that showed a part of that, but that was…and that's also addressed in the staff report under wetland, that was exempt. Mayor Furlong: Kate, could you point out on the map where the secondary Bluff Creek corridor is. Kate Aanenson: Yeah… Mayor Furlong: Just kind of run your pencil. Kate Aanenson: so this is the incidental part. You can see this black line of the wetland, and it goes back to the Water Resources Coordinator… Again we noticed it originally, just originally there was a question as to whether or not…wetlands. We went through the exercises and evaluation… So with that, the other conditional use was that there's more than one… Councilman Peterson: How big is that lot going to be? Kate Aanenson: These two, because it's all under one, I guess they'd have to make it big enough to make…which it does right now from the perimeter. It just has to make the area requirements and the impervious surface requirements. Mayor Furlong: So the proposed motions this evening in the staff report would allow 2 additional buildings on this single parcel? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Or if they wanted to. Kate Aanenson: They have to come back. Mayor Furlong: They could create a subdivision. Subdivision approval if they wanted to. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 15 Kate Aanenson: …they're just showing them as potential. They were asked to come back for a site plan review… Mayor Furlong: For those 2 additional buildings? Kate Aanenson: That's correct… Mayor Furlong: But we're approving the concept of adding 2 additional buildings, is that what's being requested in the motions this evening? I thought I saw 14 buildings with 12 being built. Kate Aanenson: Well we're approving the site on the 12 buildings… So what they're showing is that they can put 2 in the future, and we have… Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: So with that, I did mention the multiple buildings on that site, so with that we've got several recommendations. First would be the rezoning itself. Again…comprehensive plan and then B is for the variance of the overlay district. Conditional use. Up to 14 buildings. Again they'd have to come back… Councilman Lundquist: There's 12 on that drawing right there now? Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So Motion C should be adjusted to up to 12. Bruno Silikowski: Kate actually there is 14. Kate Aanenson: Okay… Mayor Furlong: We'll need to clarify where the boxes are. Which boxes are there. Kate Aanenson: Under the Motion D, which is for the site plan itself. So it'd be the architecture…the Planning Commission added the retaining wall, the standards. So on page 16 of the staff report we have the retaining wall follow the standards…and again that's mostly for reinforcement… I think there was some question on whether or not we wanted that… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Kate that we haven't interrupted her presentation with? Councilman Lundquist: Back on the drawing Kate the, somewhere in here it talks about the distance to neighboring houses. I think it's 500 and something from Stone Creek over there, or Creekside, I'm sorry, and then. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 16 Kate Aanenson: Maybe it'd be shown on this one. So we're up in this area, so this would be the closest home is here. They don't show up on the other…if you could zoom back out. This is an area of upland trees at this end down here, so that's a little bit higher in elevation so that provides some buffer. What the Planning Commission and the neighbors discussed is providing additional landscaping in this area here to help to buffer that. So additional landscaping will be placed around here and around the pond… Councilman Lundquist: So the closest houses are going to be the ones to the south there thought right? Across the railroad tracks. Kate Aanenson: This is an industrial park here. Mayor Furlong: I don't know if you can slide it over. Councilman Lundquist: So that's Creekside to the west. Mayor Furlong: Can you pick up the homes to the west on your picture. Zoom back out if you would. No, that's too tiny. Keep that same. Councilman Peterson: The one across doesn't have houses on it I don't think. Kate Aanenson: …houses that are closest down at this end… Councilman Lundquist: Okay. But roughly from the westerly building to the lots of Stone Creek, or Creekside there. Is that, what was it, 500? Kate Aanenson: 520. Councilman Lundquist: Is that what it was? Okay. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Alright. Councilman Peterson: Is that from the lot or from the house, do you know? Kate Aanenson: To the closest building. It's about, from the clubhouse, excuse me. That's their clubhouse. That'd be their point. A couple hundred feet. That's the clubhouse which is sitting at the high, based on that. Councilman Lundquist: That's all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson, any questions? Councilman Peterson: No. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 17 Mayor Furlong: A couple additional ones. With regard to the pond, and it's capacity. One of the items that I noticed in the staff report, which is on page 4 of the staff report, speaks to the design of the pond to handle, provide rate control for 2, 10, 100 and two back to back 100 year rainfalls. I guess one of my question is the two back to back 100 year rainfalls, is that an additional standard? Historically have we been designing this much? Kate Aanenson: We have been using that… Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that's part of the SWMP plan that we approved this last year to, and I read that, I assume that that means that this pond has greater capacity than historically maybe the pond we would have required the pond to be. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. In terms of the elevations of the pond, help me understand, I mean I pictured the pond kind of like a bowl and as the water goes into it, it, and when it reaches a certain level it will go out but if it overflows or if you get those big rains, you know how, what's the difference in height of that wall relative to the land below. What's the separation there? Can you zoom out a little bit on the camera if you would please. Okay. No, that'd be fine. Kate Aanenson: So this is the out, you're at 906. The bottom of the pond is, yeah. Or 900. So the…of depth to this pond itself and typically that's what we put on, the wetland is pre-treated before it goes into the wetland. It enters the wetland here and varies from the high side here at 906 down to 899 down…changing topography as it goes up again. Again in working with the applicant's engineer…so we feel pretty confident about that, and it's got a 10 to 1 bench in here so we believe that that should be more than adequate. 100 year event, whether it's overflow or if you have a 4 inch rain…but hopefully those will be pretty rare. But we know that did happen once before. Mayor Furlong: And again getting back to the issue of the staff report, I think you mentioned this but to clarify the expectation is that this pond will not only manage the rate control of runoff for the entire site, but also obviously provide water quality as it then leaves the pond and goes into the Bluff Creek corridor wetland. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Kate Aanenson: Let me just go back to the 14. Some of those squares were pretty small. They're small, skinny buildings but there are 14. There's a couple narrow ones. These over here. So I think that's what… Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. If there's no other questions for staff at this time, is the applicant here? Any comments you'd like to make? City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 18 Bruno Silikowski: Good evening. I'm Bruno Silikowski. You know there's a couple things I promised to share with you because there's actually been some new developments since Kate seen these plans so. One of the things I want to show you is that the clubhouse, and I don't know if this will come up. Kate Aanenson: Yep, he can zoom in on it. Bruno Silikowski: The design is revolving but we're going to a much, it's a higher end, more of a creative style to the types of things we're trying to come in there with. This is meant to be a higher end storage for obvious collector vehicles, things of that nature. You asked a question about windows. The reason why we don't have a lot of windows, we actually have, the way this is set up, this will be the entrance. This is the museum portion of it and these are display sections. We really don't want windows. These are very expensive vehicles that are in the museum and chances are we want, you know people want the privacy and only club members to be able to see it. There is an alternative design for the club house that we're kicking around, but you can see that it's sort of the type of detail we're talking about is significantly different than what we submitted. That was just to give us some flexibility but our intention, our direction is going this way. Another point of clarification, the distance to the far west neighbors is 720 feet. The 500 was to the property line. It's approximately an eighth of a mile and then when you go, actually Bob Generous, one of the city staff had asked us to do a cross section and we did that. It's someplace in the plans, but the other one is a quarter mile away. And then we've also agreed, and I told the neighbors this as well to, we're going to put up quite a bit of screening. As much as possible to create a dense opaque view from where the neighbors homes are going to be. But at that point if there's any questions, I'd like to try to answer them but… Councilman Peterson: I think Kate pointed out earlier, could you take a little bit more time and point out where you're going to put the additional screening. Bruno Silikowski: We're going to try to, we need to do a little study. We don't know exactly where so we need to go out to the neighbors properties to take a look at what it looks like coming this direction. Once we do that we'll commensurately try to set up the landscaping screening properly. Councilman Lundquist: Kate do you know off hand, if you look at the total acreage of the site versus the amount that's built, did I see 47? Is that what I saw? Bruno Silikowski: 47 percent. Councilman Lundquist: 47 percent, and what's the total site size? Bruno Silikowski: The total site is 38 point something acres. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So you're 19 acres out of, or 18 acres out of 40 or so. Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, and then just because I know this, I think they're allowed 75. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 19 Kate Aanenson: 70. Councilman Lundquist: 70. 70 in the district. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Just to clarify the landscaping again, because the buildings are being done in phases, we do want the landscaping put in right-of-way but we do want to meet with the property owners to get the best, to place that, to provide the best screening. Once we get some of that grading done and then go from there. Bruno Silikowski: Right. You know one other points that kind of didn't come through clearly. On the site now there's drainage coming off the railroad tracks that's being untreated going directly into the wetland and it also is going into the creek. The ponding plan actually takes that water and treats it before it ever goes into the wetland so it's another step we're trying to take in terms of being economically. Rather eco friendly in terms of what we're doing. Actually it's costing us but it's the right thing to do. What Kate talked about, this…where the pond is at, it's in a wetland. It was only caused because of the drainage coming off the tracks, and that's what was determined by not only the engineers but city staff so, just as a point of clarity. You know we've been given grades to work with and I think we've come up with a good compromise that makes sense. And the way it turns out, about 75% of the pond actually will be in buildable land and only a smaller, that smaller portion will be in that Bluff Creek Overlay Corridor. If there's any other questions feel free, otherwise I'll sit back down. Mayor Furlong: Couple quick ones. Just issues that were brought up by residents. Hours of operation. Your expectation again is? Bruno Silikowski: Normal business hours. I mean we kind of jotted down there was what typically you might see. We're business guys and we work during the day. You know we're not going to be there all night. We've got to get up in the morning just like everybody else does. You know we just happened to put our, we want to put our cars in a place and it's safe and secure and you know we want to go, so it's really only during the day times. Mayor Furlong: Do you, in terms of access, it's going to be a controlled access I assume for the owners? Bruno Silikowski: It's all gated, the entire facility is gated and it's you know electronic code… Mayor Furlong: Okay, with the electronic code them, is there a way to track who's there if there is a noise issue? Are you going to be able to work with the people? Bruno Silikowski: Yes. In fact the security system that we're reviewing their proposal right now but our intent is to have knowledge of who's in. For how long. When they came. When they left. Basically get a full profile of, and we'll know what units they're in and so we can ever trace back if there are issues. And that's not just for that reason of noise but other reasons. Mayor Furlong: Right, other issues as well. Security as well. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 20 Bruno Silikowski: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Yep, good. Bruno Silikowski: And to just give you a little sense of the quality that we're looking for there. Beyond just a normal security we're actually putting web cams and this entire complex is going to be very secure in terms of watch. In each unit has an option, the owner will be able to put a web cam so that when they're out, if they're out traveling and they want to look on what's going on with their car, they can do that. More importantly if somebody actually accesses it inappropriately, it actually starts streaming the data, video through the web. Stores it so they can go back and find out what just happened. Email their home. Emails their computer to let them know something's going on. And the whole intent here is security, security…we know that our stuff is safe and secure. Because the people we've got coming in here are real collectors. You know they have very nice vehicles and they come in and want to keep private. They're not the type of rowdy that you might think might take… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. I think those are my questions. Anything else at this time? Okay, thank you. At this time, as I mentioned earlier, I'd be happy to take some public comment again. The public hearing took place at the Planning Commission. We did have access to those minutes so we're aware of your issues and concerns that were raised. I think some of those have been answered in the staff report but there may be additional comments. If there are, I'd be happy to take those at this time so Mr. Day, I think you wanted to make some comments. Jon Day: My name is Jon Day from 8229 Stone Creek Drive and thank you Mr. Mayor and councilmen for letting me speak. I was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting. I did submit an email there and Bob was very accommodating on that. I did have a question, if you wouldn't mind. You mentioned something about a conservation easement here. Is that in the agreements? Kate Aanenson: It's a condition of approval. We have standard language that we use for conservation easement. It's conditioned on page 12, condition 3. The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and utility easement over that. And those are reviewed by, typically we have a standard one drafted by the city attorney. And that would be executed. That is a condition of approval. Jon Day: And also Bruno mentioned that there has been a new drawing submitted that shows a rear elevation of the, I think it was a cross section that was submitted. Bruno Silikowski: No, we don't have a rear elevation. Kate Aanenson: That should be, did you get the downloaded packet? Jon Day: Yep. Kate Aanenson: It's in there. I didn't show that but yeah. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 21 Jon Day: The biggest issue, you know the homeowners in our neighborhood, and I'm not speaking for all of them but we all got together. We asked Bruno to join our meeting. We had a good conversation. The biggest concern we have of course is the impact on property values. The proposal does request a conditional use…but if you could. Kate Aanenson: He's looking for it. Jon Day: Alright. And so from our back yards, what we, the site falls away from the railroad tracks to the buildings and then it falls away into the wetlands. Okay. This is what we're going to see from our back yard, are these rows of doors. The front elevation here will probably be something like the front of a club house would look like or something that you might see along Audubon. This is what we see from our back yards here. Rows of doors. What we would like to see happen here is some sort of berming effect that might block some of these doors so that, because you're not, you're going to have a parking lot out here. Asphalt falling away. This is our concern. This is what we see. This has been kind of the stipulation that we've asked for when we met with Bruno and so forth. I'd like to submit the appraiser's commentary here. We did have a certified appraiser come out. Look things over. His comments are in here. He says, I believe the proposed commercial improvements will have an adverse impact on the homes that currently enjoy their historic scenic views overlooking the specified wetlands areas. He goes on later to say that in general I believe the berm, it is my opinion that there is an economically viable remedy for the potentially adverse impact of the proposed commercial buildings on the home values along Stone Creek Drive. I believe a suitable earth berm would for all intensive purposes reduce the impact of…acceptably negligible margin. We feel, at least, I can't speak for the whole neighborhood but that that type of remedy should be included in the conditional use permit. Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor, can I just understand where they are because. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: I think they're looking at the backs of the, I'm not sure. Which? Mayor Furlong: Which buildings? Kate Aanenson: Which buildings? You're looking at the end. Jon Day: These buildings here. Mayor Furlong: Can we zoom out there so we can, thank you. That's a little far. There we go, thank you. Jon Day: All the homes are along this street here. Kate Aanenson: So you're talking about this. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 22 Jon Day: This is the outside of the, you know where the doors would be for the cars to pull into and then it all slopes away from here down grade into the wetlands. And then all these homes up here rise up and so the back doors of our house we would look across this creek bottom, up the side hill and right into all these overhead garage doors. Mayor Furlong: To the issue, are those two to the southwest that you're referring to Mr. Day. Jon Day: Exactly. Kate Aanenson: There is a cross section… So this is the ridge… Jon Day: And those, actually that building there is. Kate Aanenson: The club house. Jon Day: It's the club house, yeah. Kate Aanenson: But they're looking down this way, and that was the area that I had mentioned before that we had agreed to, as did the applicant agreed to, where we want to push the additional landscaping. We want to get the finalized grading plan…set of conditions and then meet with them. I just want to make sure that we've gotten…the acceptable level of…be clear on what the expectation is there, but I think we've agreed…additional screening but I just want to make clear, because there are other circumstances where we've done this and sometimes people aren't happy… Mayor Furlong: Different assumptions as to what was… Jon Day: When the General Mills facility expanded, which is north of here, in 2003, we dug up the minutes from staff and Planning Commission and they required General Mills to increase berming 4 feet and to add additional screening views of truck loading/unloading areas to mitigate sound and also sight lines so there's a little bit of precedent there for some berming and that. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Since I worked on that project, the issue there is, General Mills was a sound, noise issue. It's some areas of the city it can be chronic, especially this time of the year when it's quiet. There's no leaves on the trees so really the issue there, as a requirement for all, just to be clear on that, in the industrial standards we try to screen all loading and unloading facilities. It's a little bit different circumstance here. I just want to make sure that's clear, that's a standard requirement. But we'd be happy to work with the landscaping. Mayor Furlong: This is a view issue and that's an operation… Kate Aanenson: Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. Councilman Lundquist: Could you put that cross section back up Kate? City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 23 Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, as Mr. Day pointed out, this is a little bit north of the area. This is going towards the club house, so this would be those lots, but...if you're looking this way, then you're looking into the back of those garages and we believe that that, and as did the Planning Commission, that's an area we can put additional landscaping. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And it's wide open. I mean I've driven past there a lot because it's… Kate Aanenson: And again let's go back to this one, we have the primary zone. We want to stay out, you know kind of just on the edge of that where they're following that topographic line and we could look at that to provide some additional… Councilman Lundquist: But across that conservation easement, if you go straight to the west from there, that's wide open the whole way? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, then we've got this upland area of trees. Mayor Furlong: We can't, we can't see your finger. There you go. Kate Aanenson: The area right in here. The outline, but it's this area that's the…looking across and that's what we're trying to solve. This area here. And we've got that marked and the applicant's aware of that. It's just, I'm not sure that we can try to do the design right now. We want to wait until it's graded. Where we actually see how much… Councilman Peterson: But Kate, if we do berming, or try to do berming, assuming, isn't that logically going into the setback farther? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That's why I say we want to look at, we want to look at what we can accomplish with vegetation's our first choice so I think we need to see exactly where those buildings are sitting. What the view lines. How many homes it's affecting. What's the most effective way to do it. Todd Gerhardt: And the grades may not lend to a berm either. Kate Aanenson: Correct. It's dropping, I don't have the grading plan here but it is dropping in some of those areas. Towards the tracks. Bruno Silikowski: May I add something… Mayor Furlong: Okay. I'm sorry, yes. Bruno Silikowski: The other thing I'd like for a perspective is, you know there's many of us, including the neighbors, this is probably the lightest use they're going to see on this industrial property and in terms of the buildings, we are making them attractive looking and we're trying our best to do that. It's meant to be attractive looking. So we would agree to do what we can in City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 24 terms of, it could only get worst if it was somebody else coming in so. But our intention is to be a good neighbor. Do the best we can. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Any other public comment? Laurie Tofteland: My name's Laurie Tofteland: I live at 8325 Stone Creek Drive, and just for clarification so that maybe…visualize a little bit better. My, looking out my deck, I'm counting myself and Jerry Cornell, who is not here this evening, are most impacted as far as visually. This, and I can certainly bring this around to you if you'd like to see it. This actually here is the corner of this building here. And that is what I see directly out. That's the 720 feet. So it really does, it is a lot closer than what you would think. And we've been very accommodating to all the things that he is you know. We talked it out if there wasn't enough over grown trees in the original proposal, and he's been very accommodating and says he'll do that. Originally we were told that there'd be a possibility of eliminating these two buildings and having additional square footage somewhere else to compensate for the loss of those two, but at that time he said it was an all or nothing deal. So you know so they can visualize a little bit better. Also I have some pictures on here too…and how they affected our properties as well. This is…but it shows, you know this is the edge of my sod and it shows the water all the way up to the edge of the grass… Mayor Furlong: Was this after the Labor Day storm? Laurie Tofteland: And the time before that as well. Mayor Furlong: When was that, do you recall? Laurie Tofteland: One was Labor Day and one was Memorial Day? Mayor Furlong: It was Labor Day and then in October. Okay. Laurie Tofteland: But that's just to help you visualize how close those buildings really are. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Mark Zitzewitz: Councilmen and Mayor. My name is Mark Zitzewitz. I live at 1930 Bluff Creek Court. I don't want to belabor points but I do believe that one thing is being talked over I think and given short trip. The proposed views of this property, we hear well it's going to be business hours, although at the same time it's been said well these are business men so I think it's reasonable for the neighbors to assume that they will be at this site not during business hours, when they're working, but early in the morning, late in the evening. It's been mentioned, at least in the Planning Commission minutes, these facilities will be used for maintenance of these vehicles. And these are noisy activities. These are not just people coming to look at their cars. These are people come to work on their cars. I think it's also reasonable to assume that someone who's paying for a storage facility is going to use it for whatever they want. They've got access to these facilities 24/7. If they want to keep their snowmobile there, and tune it up at 5:00 a.m., there's nothing to stop them from doing that and so this suggestion that this is merely a passive use of this facility, the least intrusive use of this, I think doesn't actually speak to the way it's City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 25 actually going to be used. This is a 24/7 storage facility. And for the people who live on the back side of that, all of the noise is going to come across this wetland basin right into our neighborhood. All of the light pollution's going to come straight across that wetland basin into our neighborhood, and so I think those use proposals haven't been adequately addressed. Mr. Silikowski has been gracious enough to talk to us about this and we appreciate that but his suggestions to us that well there will be covenants imposed upon these properties. Well, sounds like a great idea. We don't have an opportunity to speak to those covenants. We're not a party to those contracts and frankly I wouldn't expect to be consulted when those covenants are drafted. This is our opportunity to have the council to speak for us to those covenants as far as restrictions on noise and uses that would lead to offensive noise and light pollution that will affect the neighborhood. So I would ask that the council consider imposing use restrictions and noise restrictions on this facility so that we don't have 5:00 a.m., 10:00 p.m. muffler work across our back yards. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess some questions, and maybe this is a question for the city attorney with regard to our noise ordinance. What protection is currently available there with our current ordinances with regard to noise. Roger Knutson: We do have restrictions on creating a nuisance and we have a bunch of other very specific restrictions I think on operating and doing repair work. If you'd just give me a minute I'll find that out. Mayor Furlong: And I guess while he's doing that with regard to light, I think you mentioned a little bit about the lights. They're on the buildings? Kate Aanenson: They're on wall packs, yeah. With a down cast, as opposed to parking lot lights for example which you'd have in a normal situation so it's, it should be less intense for the lighting. Mayor Furlong: So I'm sorry, but these are down, lights that are mounted on the building. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Wall packs. Shining down. Councilman Lundquist: Security lighting not… Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Correct, and we also talked to the applicant regarding possibly doing the more motion detector types so they wouldn't have to be lit but for motion on the property itself. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, what's the, with regard to ordinances. With regard to light at the property line. Are we, is that… Kate Aanenson: He's have to have half foot candle at the property line. Mayor Furlong: At the property line or at the. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 26 Kate Aanenson: Half foot candle of lumens. In this circumstances they should be significantly less, especially with the additional landscaping that we'll be requesting. And I'm talking on the most westerly side. Will there still be some ambient light if you look across the way? More than is there today? Yes. There would be no matter what went in there, there'd be some ambient but it's at the half foot candle at the property line, which this will meet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Looking at these pictures that she brought in. On this one here she said that's kind of where the corner is. Is this railroad tracks coming across here? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And then those are the existing buildings south of the railroad track I assume. What sort of lighting do that they have on those buildings there currently? Kate Aanenson: Some of those have wall packs too and there's also parking lot lighting on those. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it's similar. Yeah. Laurie Tofteland: In the night that there's actually…wetland area…to the. Mayor Furlong: On the south side of the railroad tracks? Yeah, okay. Laurie Tofteland: And I just want to point out too that you know, our neighborhood as a group has never really been opposed to the development altogether because it is, you know in light of what could be there, it is relatively pleasing to the eye…pleasing to look at, and we enjoy that. So I don't want to come across I mean we're being negative or you know…we appreciate that. And I do feel he is trying to be a good neighbor. I just wanted you to have a view from my vantage point, from my window, from my back yard and my investment and house to take into consideration the additional berming and… Follow up that yeah, he is going to actually go ahead and do that and having that cross section did help with the visualization so, thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other public comments? We'll take one, at the most two more. No? Okay. Okay, very good. Anything at this point Mr. Knutson? Roger Knutson: Yes Mayor. I was just trying to refresh my recollection. We have hour restriction on repair activities with power equipment. No person shall engage in a permit construction, maintenance, repair including noise but not limited to any electric, diesel, so on, gas machine other, or any kind of equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on the weekdays, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. So that should give quite a bit of protection. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any follow up questions for staff? Or the applicant. Any comments you'd like to make in response? City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 27 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to indicate, in reviewing the conditions, certainly we have the condition regarding the conveyance of the conservation easement, and that is why we wanted to get that in control so we continue to have that wildlife corridor. That was the whole goal of the Bluff Creek plan. But in looking through here, I don't see the condition regarding the additional landscaping, unless I missed it so I would recommend a spot for that. That would be. Mayor Furlong: There was one on the additional landscaping and then you talked about the terraced wall too. Kate Aanenson: Yep I've got it, I've got a spot for that. Yeah, that's number 7. The last condition on page 16, but if you look at the forester's condition, the last one, I would add, so it's (d), (e), (f). Provide additional buffering along the western, most westerly and northerly edge of the development. And that we would work to increase the landscaping and I want to include, and may include berming. May include berming so we have to look at that. We certainly understand what our residents concern is on that regarding the noise and the visibility and that's what the goal will be. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: You're suggesting putting that where? Kate Aanenson: Under the forester's condition regarding landscaping. So that would be on page 15 of 16. It'd be (f), right before 6. Councilman Peterson: Under 5. Kate Aanenson: 5, thank you. Bruno Silikowski: Excuse me Kate. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Bruno Silikowski: Actually Generous, Bob Generous did get it in there. It's on, I'm not sure what page it is…This is what we had put in and then this is what they required. Kate Aanenson: Correct, but it's not in a condition of approval and I need to convey it in a condition because you're going to sign a site plan agreement that says I'm bound by those conditions of approval. Bruno Silikowski: That's fine. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So it was in the staff report. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 28 Kate Aanenson: In the staff report. It just wasn't in a condition. And just to be clear, for the resident's edification too then, a site plan agreement is signed and executed that says this is how it will be, follow these terms and conditions and the buildings will look as presented. Mayor Furlong: And so in terms of managing expectations, and I guess we can talk about whether it's our expectation that you know, complete screening where you wouldn't be able to see a building or just you know some screening so we can get that, but we should probably in that language build in you know, that the applicant would work with staff and residents but my suggestion would be that we leave it to staff's discretion in terms of managing that process as well. I think the expectation, and I'll kind of slide into comments. I think the expectation of complete screening is probably not attainable. But certainly there could be some improvement and I think I'm going to guess that we'll be supportive of that. Along that entire western side of the development. Kate Aanenson: Again with that Mayor, because this is a phased project, our goal is to get that out there right away so it's mature before those buildings go in place, and so again that would be the goal so that would give some growth years by the time we get down to those buildings. Councilman Lundquist: You're going to have some unique opportunities with fence all the way around this thing to do all kinds of stuff. Vines and you know drive down Dell Road along Bearpath. That is, with a fence there, at least it's, like the pictures they have in their other clubs, I mean there's all kinds of opportunities for doing things. That are both screening and pleasing and not intrusive to the project. Todd Gerhardt: Kate maybe that's something we can add to that section instead of maybe berming. Maybe it can be fencing. Councilman Lundquist: Well you're going to have a fence around the whole thing anyway. Kate Aanenson: Well that wasn't their intent to put a fence up around the entire project at the beginning. Yeah, I think there's just. Mayor Furlong: Around a portion of it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think just some portions of it right now. Correct. Bruno Silikowski: The wetland provides a natural barrier. Kate Aanenson: Right. And we also want to keep that wildlife corridor, that's the other goal so we don't have, obviously deer can jump up but there's the little critters that may not be able to make it through our fence if we have an open style, so we will look at those opportunities. Provide the best barrier that we can, whether it's even fencing on that part still might be an optimal thing with a berm. Something. We'll look at that. Kate Aanenson: You represent everybody don't you. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 29 Kate Aanenson: I do. Mayor Furlong: Even the little critters. Kate Aanenson: All the little critters. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We've kind of slid in, a little bit into comments but. Councilman Peterson: We're still in questions. I've got one. Kate, one of the things we talked about, and we've done it in other projects too on conditional use permits is hours of operation. I don't want to limit the salability of these but can we talk about that any of the units facing west can't have their garage doors open and activity can't be happening after 9:00 or 10:00 in the evening so that we get, we have that as a conditional use. It's a slippery slope but Roger, maybe you can answer the question. Roger Knutson: Well, maybe if you would zero in on repair activities that's audible outside of a building after a certain hour, because again I've never seen one of these things. I don't know how they operate but I can envision someone on a summer evening I suppose. Opening up the garage and bringing their friends over and saying, look at my wonderful cars or something at 10:00 at night, I don't know. I don't know if people do that or not, but that would be one thing. But repair activity that's audible, you could also make that a condition that there can be no repair activity that's audible outside the property line after 9:00 in the evening or before 7:00 in the morning for example. Councilman Peterson: But essentially that's redundant to our statute. Roger Knutson: It's an added protection. It just reinforces it. Some people. Bruno Silikowski: We have the, again my. Mayor Furlong: If you could come to the microphone. Why don't you come to the microphone if you would please. Bruno Silikowski: We probably have one of the best attorneys in the state, David Ines writing our condo documentation. He virtually wrote condo law in Minnesota. You know we are putting in a significant amount of covenants inside of our facility and this is where it belongs. You can't, I mean it makes sense to be able to have it self policed. There is, as we talked about, there is nuisance noise taking place, there's due course for that. We can certainly deal with a problem person but you're talking about people who aren't interested in working on our cars at 11:00 at night. You're thinking of the wrong kind of people, and so all I can tell you is that in our condo documentation, the covenants, restrictive covenants are going to protect that kind of thing… We don't want having the council, we don't want this. We don't want that. You know we're talking about vehicles that are irreplaceable and so we're not interested in having issues. So you know it sounds like we're trying to legislate something. This is an industrial zone property. We have to give our clients some flexibility. If they need to drop something off at City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 30 11:00 at night, well they shouldn't be restricted from doing that, but it's certainly common sense is they're not going to be working… Kate Aanenson: Let me just add to that. Todd Gerhardt: I think you were recommending that we… Kate Aanenson: No, and I think too also, we have to look at long term because the property could be sold. It could be a different owner and also we don't enforce covenants. Those would be your enforcement tool. Not the City's enforcement tool. We can only enforce our city ordinance, so we have to protect ourself, whether it's you or somebody else that owns the property. So I think it's fair and reasonable to say, well as a staff we don't want to be down there because of a bunch of people standing around talking and looking at a car. I think it's reasonable to say, if they're working on a car, making noise, as the city attorney suggested, that we will be able to enforce that. If they're disturbing the peace and enjoyment of the neighboring properties, and I think that's our rule. Mayor Furlong: And does our ordinance already provide that disturbing and… Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think as Roger's pointing out, the city attorney's pointing out, it might help to put it as a condition of the site plan so we can also say that you're in violation of that portion too just as a clear, and again it's the working on. It's the motorized. If they're talking and visiting and not disturbing anybody, I don't think we want to have to send the sheriff down for that. If that makes sense. Bruno Silikowski: Actually it's a big gray area. You've got General Mills running trucks day and night, 24 hours a day. And they're making noises. Why can't we complain about them? That's where it's going to go to. I mean it seems a little overkill to be honest with you. I mean it's just not going to be something that… There's an occasions where somebody does drop something off and they bring the car in at 11:00 at night, and I just don't want to be getting calls in the middle of the night about complaints. It's unlikely to happen. It's extremely unlikely to happen and there's another avenue that could resolve issues if it does occur. Kate Aanenson: Again I'll go back to my point and that is, our interest is to protect the property owners and this property, this developer may not always be the person in charge and we're bound by what we decide today, and I think it's prudent, as the city attorney advised, maybe to put it in there and, nobody wants to be down there if…but it's a level of protection. Councilman Peterson: I originated the question. I don't know how I'd phrase it anyway other than replicating what our current, what our current ordinance is and… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Bruno Silikowski: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? If not, comments. Thoughts. Thank you. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 31 Bruno Silikowski: I guess the only comment I'd like to make, you know we are selling these things. If we start having all these lists of restrictive covenants that seem to be unreasonable, and I think this is an unreasonable one, I think our clients will. They may have issues with some and I don't want to be encumbered with something that's going to probably not be able to…it's just not fair. Councilman Peterson: Well to replicate what our current ordinance is, then I've got a problem with it so. Bruno Silikowski: You know and it came up, the whole noise issue and what the planning group talked about was if there is an issue, there's a due course. You can call the police. There's a nuisance noise, and the issue will be resolved… We'll make sure we apply that restrictive covenant and…but you have to give us some latitude. We're not evil people. Councilman Peterson: Well we're not going to give you latitude more than our ordinance provides so, again you had me. Now you're losing me so. Bruno Silikowski: Well I give up. Anything else? Okay, thank you. Jon Day: Can I make one last comment? Mayor Furlong: Is it a new issue? Please. Short. Jon Day: The applicant is asking for variances of conditional uses. He's asking for exceptions to the rule. Our duty, our citizenship needs your help in enforcement rules. Okay? He wants exceptions. If this property is going to stay over here, where it's currently zoned, we probably wouldn't be having any of these concerns. These two buildings here are the issue. These are the ones that infringed out here and into the neighborhood the closest. So Mr. Bruno, I mean I know what you're saying is you want latitude and so forth, but you're asking for the city to give you all kinds of exceptions to the rule so we need your help in enforcing the rule. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Day brings up a point. They're asking for a conditional use permit. I'm looking at the four motions. Help me understand what the conditional use permits relate to. It looks like motion B relates to. Kate Aanenson: Two of them. The conditional. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Summarize those for us quickly. Kate Aanenson: Well the conditional use is one conditional use is for activity within the corridor. Bluff Creek corridor. The other one is for 14 buildings on one single lot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And within the Bluff Creek corridor, that at this point is relating to the storm pond. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 32 Kate Aanenson: Correct, a variance for the storm pond. Mayor Furlong: Because if I followed your pencil correctly, all the buildings are outside the secondary. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Corridor. Okay. And then the second conditional use was relating to 4 on 1. Or 14, excuse me, on one parcel. The option there would have been to subdivide and have separate parcels with cross access easements. Kate Aanenson: Correct. So B includes a variance for the storm water pond and for the conditional use to grade within the Bluff Creek. C is for the 14 buildings. Those are the two, but they're put in one motion because actually activity, all the conditions in B are interrelated. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So I guess the question that I would consider is with those conditional use permits, if those are pertaining to the use. That would be an opportunity to do that. I don't know if other users within this, these business parks have hours of operation as well. Part of my concern is, it's my understanding Mr. Knutson, if we put in something specific to noise of operations here, in a conditional use permit, that would override a future change potentially of the city's ordinance, and that this would be the only thing on it forever. If there's nothing mentioned and our ordinance would fall off, if that was changed, either more restrictive or otherwise, then they'd be subject to the new ordinance. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: If you adopted a new ordinance and it was more restrictive than the condition in the conditional use permit, the more restrictive ordinance would apply. You'd have to comply with both basically. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Let me back up and clarify something. The conditional use is not for the use. This is a permitted use of the district. The conditional, yeah. The conditional use is for grading in the Bluff Creek. What you're trying to do is bridge an nexus to say, I'm going to take that conditional use and now apply it to the standards of the use itself. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess that gets back to my first two questions. Kate Aanenson: And I'll let the city attorney decide if that's an appropriate nexus or not but it's for the grading activity. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess that gets back to my first question. What the conditional use permit… Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry I didn't make that clear, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's for grading and it's the fact that. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 33 Kate Aanenson: In the overlay district. Mayor Furlong: One parcel. Kate Aanenson: And the other one is for 14. Instead of subdividing, our ordinance does allow, it doesn't say you have to subdivide. It does allow, under a conditional use, which you can only attach conditions to, and that you know, I'll let the city attorney again address what. Mayor Furlong: No thanks. I'm comfortable then at that point, if others have questions. So, okay. Any other questions? Let me, let's get an opportunity for the council to discuss this here. Comments. Discussion. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, addressing overall project first, then going into more detail. Overall I think, I'm pleased with the project. I like the additional renderings or sketches that were brought for us showing some more of the upgraded detail. I think it's an interesting use so intrigued by that. As far as overall the site plan, again I like the pushing the majority of the development towards the road. Being that that's a county road and you know more business there away from the residential I think is, I'd like to see that. I want to see some type of work, additional work put in to some screening. Some berming. Doesn't necessarily have to be that. I think you've got a multitude of options. We understand the concept of you know something to break up that view. I believe that once that is in place, that that will also have a significant impact in reduction on not only the just the general view but light penetration. Sound penetration. All of those things. And on the last issue we were talking about on the noise piece, not in favor of additional constraints here. We've all, the three of us have been part of a significant amount of work to that nuisance and noise ordinance based on things that have happened over time that we've learned and I'm comfortable with that, with where we're at now. And not in favor of restricting, you know the ability to come and go and things like that. I anticipate that you know, especially at the beginning there, you know people are going to learn what's acceptable and not acceptable. And being that we've got that ordinance in there, I think it's already pretty restrictive and we have used it in the past. It's there for a reason and I don't want to you know, get too onerous and restrictive of the owner's ability to use his property as well. I don't anticipate that you're going to have a lot of things going on out there and if we do, we've got those in place. And again, I think that additional screening will also help shield some of the noise and light as well. I do want to make sure that we try to balance the residents that are there now and their view with the ability of this property owner to have a reasonable use of his or their property as well. It's always difficult and we've had you know this isn't the first time in the Stone Creek neighborhood that we've had industrial development going on around it and have had these types of discussions so, you know it ultimately ends up being a little bit of give on each side. For the residents to understand that that owner had the ability or right to develop their property as well, but the expectation is that you know, there's some respect there for addition for existing homeowners as well, and I think with the commitment and the additional condition to put additional screening in there, that that should satisfy everyone's concerns. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. Peterson. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 34 Councilman Peterson: I trying to think of something to add to that. It was one of his finest. Mayor Furlong: Well it's about time. Councilman Peterson: It is. Took him 4 years to do it but he did it well. I really don't have much to add. I agree with Councilman Lundquist. The only thing that I would offer, as just ancillary advice would be, in just thinking about the screening, putting a fence, a non-connected fence back where the berm might be potentially and screening that with vines might be a more cost effective way and get more screening done effectively so. Kate Aanenson: I think there is an intent to put a screening in for security purposes at the end of those buildings but we can certainly look at that. Councilman Peterson: But I mean that's another option so the one thing I wanted to add to it so. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Thank you mate. I think overall, you know it is a permitted use and that's one of the things we have to judge and I think they've met the standard there. It's also a less intrusive use than what alternatives could be in, and in looking at some these pictures, there's some pretty big buildings on the south side of the railroad track that I understand would also be permitted use on this property too and so while there are issues to deal with, I think they've made some good progress. I do concur with adding in the condition with regard to the additional screening on the southwest buildings. Whether that's buffering or fences as well. I think as Councilman Lundquist mentioned, you go through some of these and you learn and you see developments after they're built. The comment was made about the retaining walls and there are two in particular. One's a 14 foot wall. The other's a 15 foot wall. The other ones are 4, 5 and 6 feet. And I think that was something that we should amend that. The one condition with regard to the retaining walls. Not only going with the standard but including the terracing there. That provides an opportunity for it to break that up by view across the wetland. Where at this point it might be engineering, from an engineering standpoint fine to go 15 feet, but let's break it up a little bit and add the additional landscaping, so that's the other condition. Noise is going to be an issue. Anytime you have new neighbors move in, that's a potential issue and I guess at this point I'm comfortable staying with our ordinances for reasons that we talked about before because I think we can enforce those and. The other thing that gave me some comfort was the applicant's response that they would, with the entrance and access system, they'd be able to track who was there and who was not there so there'll be a way to find out if there's a problem. Who's causing it, especially if it's a repeat offender, and then work within that so. But overall I think, as a site plan we are gaining some benefit publicly with regard to the conservation easement over the corridor. There is no building taking place in the secondary corridor in terms of building. The pond is I think engineered as well, or even better in terms of handling storm runoff than some of our other ponds so I think that there's a little bit of work to be done but what I'm hearing is that has to be done on site with regard to the screening and determining that and I know our staff is very competent and capable of getting that done so. I guess with regard to the conditions, it sounds like what I'm hearing is we need to add condition (f) under the forester conditions on the site plan, and then also under condition 7 under the engineering modifications so. Do you have some, you gave some suggested language on that. Do you have something on the terraced wall? City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 35 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. On number 7, what I was suggesting is that the retaining wall follow standards incorporated in the subdivision regulations, which is the MnDot standard. Mayor Furlong: That's what here now. Kate Aanenson: And then also retaining walls shall be terraced. The question is where you want that to occur. Greater than 8 feet or 8 feet plus because there's an 8 foot, a 14 and a 15 so where you want that break to occur. In anything over 4 foot has to be engineered. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: So where you want that break. Mayor Furlong: I thought you said there's an 8 foot wall as well. I think there was 14, 15 and then. Kate Aanenson: If you go to page, engineering, staff identified those walls. If you go to page 4. On the bottom there's a chart. There's an 8 foot that's 120 foot on the south side of the pond. And then. Mayor Furlong: Show where that 8 foot is. I think my thought is, I'll defer to the rest of the council. The 15 and the 14 certainly. Bruno Silikowski: If I could make some comments. The one wall that's on the inside which is the 15 foot, no one's going to see except for the people inside the condo. If that, putting terrace there would actually be really detrimental to the development. Mayor Furlong: Well, that is if I understand correctly, I'm sorry. Show me where the 8 foot wall is. Kate Aanenson: This would be the south side of the pond. There's a wall right here. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And what's the wall just to the west of the pond right there in front of the club house? Is that the 15 foot? Kate Aanenson: 9. 12, 14. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that is, I'm assuming here that the building is higher than the pond, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: The finished floor elevation right there, you are correct. Mayor Furlong: So that wall faces west. Kate Aanenson: Correct. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 36 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the one to the north of the club house. Kate Aanenson: This one. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Isn't that the other 14 or 15 foot? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And again, are the buildings higher than the wetland I assume. Kate Aanenson: Finished floor elevation, correct. Mayor Furlong: So that faces to the northwest. I guess those were the ones that I was looking at and to the extent that they're facing away from the property, I think terracing. Kate Aanenson: Right over here is where it gets pinched based on the… Mayor Furlong: Now the other retaining wall to the east there, if you can zoom out on the camera please. Yeah. Now which way, that faces into the development so the road is higher than the building to the west of that wall? Bruno Silikowski: The buildings are quite a bit higher than. Mayor Furlong: Than the road? Bruno Silikowski: No, the road's actually, it's close. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: This elevation on this side is. Mayor Furlong: But that might be one of the shorter walls. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so this is 934 so this is one of the, yeah. This is actually a 3 to 1 slope. Mayor Furlong: Alright. So the issue is on the west side of the property near the clubhouse. And again I'll defer. It appears that those would be reasonable to terrace because they're facing out away from the property. Councilman Peterson: If you've got the space to do it. Mayor Furlong: If you've got the space to do it, and I think that's what we have to. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and what the visibility is up in this area. Mayor Furlong: And that may not be as critical as the one down by the pond. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 37 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So I guess to the extent it's engineeringly possible to terrace. I'm sorry? With that qualification. Councilman Lundquist: Options of terracing? Mayor Furlong: Yep. Terrace if possible. Bruno Silikowski: And we'll…to the neighbors, I'd be more than happy to try to make that look really attractive. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I think those were the ones that I'm thinking about. That's great, thank you. Kate Aanenson: So can we modify that just so we're clear for the language on the site plan agreement. That the retaining walls meet the standards, and those walls that have exterior elevations facing neighborhoods be terraced. Councilman Lundquist: If that's the option of terracing. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if possible. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: My expectation if they can be terraced, that they should be. Any other thoughts or discussion? If there's none, motion begins on page. Kate Aanenson: 11. Mayor Furlong: Where is the motion? Page 11 on the staff report, and 251-252. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd move, do you want to do them all four at once or one at a time? What's your pleasure? Mayor Furlong: Let's do them all. Unless there's a reason to separate them? Councilman Peterson: I would move that City Council approve the rezoning the western portion of the Ag Estate District (A2) industrial to office park IOP. I also move that we approve the conditional use permit, conditions 1 through 6. I would also move that we approve the conditional use permit for allowing multiple buildings, up to 14 on one parcel, subject to one condition. I also finally approve that the City Council adopt a site plan for 12 buildings, 11 storage buildings totaling 177,000 square feet subject to conditions 1 through 7, with the addition, changes and additions of 5(f) and 7 as noted by staff this evening. Subject to findings of facts. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 38 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves the Rezoning of the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a Variance to locate the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek primary zone, in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans shall be revised to show the correct Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. 2. The applicant shall develop a restoration plan for the upland areas within the primary zone that includes native plants for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before installation. 3. The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 4. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. 6. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 39 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the two buildings immediately adjacent to Audubon Road shall require a separate site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 12 buildings (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional windows or doors must be incorporated in the clubhouse eastern building elevation to comply with the 50 percent transparency requirement. 2. Water Resource Coordinator conditions: a. The plans shall be revised to show how the water routed through Wetland Area B will be conveyed to the proposed stormwater pond. b. The plans shall be revised to show only non-exempt wetlands. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas to be preserved shall be protected by silt fence during grading. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c. The plans shall be revised to show the correct primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. d. A conditional use permit and variance shall be obtained prior to alteration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. e. Drainage and utility easements over the stormwater pond and areas necessary for pond access (including an easement over the main drive aisle through the site from Audubon Road to the pond) shall be dedicated to the City prior to recording the site plan. The parking areas and drive aisles shall be swept each spring to prevent sand from leaving the site. Documentation of sweeping activity shall be submitted to the City annually. f. The plans shall be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details for stormwater infrastructure and erosion and sediment control, including 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301 City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 40 and 5302A. A detail for the proposed temporary perforated riser pipe shall also be included in the plans. g. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) is needed; a detail shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins shall provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipe shall discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetland and shall be stabilized with riprap. h. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. i. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. j. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. k. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. l. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the site and approved by City staff prior to issuing a permit. The SWPPP shall include a provision that requires temporary seeding of stockpiles if left exposed for more than 14 days. m. The plans shall be revised to include energy dissipation on all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation. n. The plans shall be revised to replace hay bale curbside inlet controls with Wimco-type inlet controls. A detail shall be provided. The controls shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. o. All perimeter controls shall follow the City’s specifications. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the City and the SWCD prior to grading. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 41 b. 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. c. Yellow curbing and no parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and signs to be installed. d. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. e. 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. f. Submit radius turn dimensions to City engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4. Building Official Conditions: a. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. d. Every building containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected to a public or private sewer (MSPC 4715.310). No building sewer shall be less than 4 inches in diameter (MSPC 4715.2310). Building drain must be by gravity (MSPC 4715.2430). The distance between cleanouts in horizontal piping shall not exceed 50 feet for 3-inch or less in size and not over 100 feet for 4-inch and over in size (MSPC 4715.1010. 5. Forester conditions: a. All existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road shall be preserved and protected with tree preservation fencing during construction. Any City boulevard tree that dies or is removed will be required to be replaced. b. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 82 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 42 c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 23 overstory trees along the northwest property line buffer yard. d. The slope along the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be seeded with an approved native seed mix. e. Plant selections for landscape requirements shall incorporate native species for buffer yard and parking lot landscaping f. Increase the buffer planting along the westerly and northwesterly portions of the site. Buffer may include berming, landscaping or fencing. 6. Engineering Conditions: a. The grading plan must be revised to show proposed pavement grades for the driveway access to the northern office/warehouse. b. The grading plan must show proposed pavement grades. c. Pavement grades must not exceed 10%. d. The private streets within the development must be constructed to a nine-ton design. e. An additional spot elevation must be shown on the south end of the storage building immediately west of the northern office/warehouse to ensure positive drainage. f. Note the proposed rim and invert elevation of the storm sewer located at the driveway intersection south of bore hole location #3. g. The developer must coordinate with City staff to ensure that pond maintenance and emergency vehicles will be able to access the gated area. h. The width of the drive aisle southeast of the pond must be minimum 26 feet wide in addition to the proposed parallel parking stalls. i. If fire code permits, staff recommends that the private watermain be six-inch diameter for water quality purposes. j. The City’s construction observer shall be present for all sanitary sewer and watermain testing to ensure that the proposed connections to the City facilities are in conformance with engineering standards. k. The developer shall pay for the inspection bills and submit a $5,000.00 security to ensure payment of these bills. City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 43 7. The retaining wall shall follow the standards for retaining walls incorporated in the subdivision regulations. The applicant shall also investigate the terracing of walls over eight feet in height. (Visibility of the walls to the west is a factor to determine the need for terracing.)” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate your comments and your help. Noting the time, let's take, you want to take a quick recess? Let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the call of the Chair. ADOPTION OF THE 2007 BUDGET AND LEVY. Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and council. The item we're discussing tonight is the 2007 proposed budget and CIP. I'm just going to give a quick history of what happened…to get to this point for those that have not been involved in this process so far. Early this summer staff and the City Manager met to discuss the 2007 budget and the department heads, along with the city manager came up with a proposed 2007 budget which we discussed with City Council in August of this year. In September we passed a preliminary levy September 15th which sets the preliminary levy at $9,575,778. In September, October, November we held each of the department heads, department meetings that discussed each individual part of the budget in detail in work sessions with the council. Last week we held a Truth in Taxation hearing to give the public an opportunity to comment on that budget. At that hearing we did not receive comments from the public about the budget, and this week we are going to pass that levy and CIP proposed for 2007. Just want to go through a quick slide presentation of what we are levying for next year. What are percentages…are going to be. As you can see, our 2006 budget had total expenditures of $8.9 million which included a $285,000 debt transfer. 2007 we have a total expenditure general fund budget of $9,062,000. The changes within types of expenditures, the largest increase is in public works area and those costs are for fuel costs, street lighting, salt for our roads and a few other items that we had discussed…over the last few weeks. The other departments saw minimal increases for wages and some supplies but in total the increases were kept generally at or near cost of living. Revenues. Two revenue items to note that we did increase substantially from the prior year are our permit revenues. With anticipated development in the 2005 MUSA area, it is our projection that permit revenues will be increasing to over $800,000 in 2007. Up from $600,000 in 2006. In addition fines and penalties revenue has been increasing over the last year. We have it in the budget now for fines and penalties in the amount of $130,000. Staff has just recently gotten some additional numbers and we do believe that that number could exceed or be near $150,000. Bringing our total increase in revenues up 5.2%. Here's a look at our general fund expenditure history. The blue bar would be actual general fund expenditures. The yellow bars would be transfers we made in those years for debt service payments out of the general fund using cash reserves. What factors change the budget for 2007 versus 2006? While we saw an increase for personnel costs. Also heating and fuel costs which we discussed earlier. The total general fund expenditures will increase 5.19%. That number, if you exclude the debt service transfer that we had made last year, the increase would be 5.19%. If you include that transfer, which we did not make the transfer to debt service out of the general fund this year, the increase is 1.82%. What are we levying for? $6.5 million we are levying for general fund operations. This number is basically backed into after we calculate what our City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 44 estimated budgeted revenues are going to be for the year. This number helps make the general fund flush or a zero budget for 2007. A capital replacement fund levy, $824,000. A slight increase from the prior year to help pay for our equipment expenditures… A small levy for seal coating our street pavement management, and then we see a number of levies for the debt payments. Those are our total tax capacity levies. In addition to those levies we do have some market value levy… Park referendum, which we refinanced the bond for in 2006. The bond payment is $600 and some thousand and change. $633,500. The amount that you see last year is the amount we actually levied for..bond came in a little higher than that. We used cash reserves to buy down that payment basically. And the library referendum. One thing you will note the bond payment for the park referendum for 2009 is substantially higher. It's the last year of the bond payment for the park referendum and we set up that debt intentionally because that's when additional levy becomes available from losing other levies, debt levies that we have on the books. What is the effect of these levies? General fund is showing a slight increase in the levy of 2.5%. Debt service levies remain relatively flat at 1/10 of 1% increase. The total tax levy increases to the City of Chanhassen for 2007 compared to 2006 is $220,000 or 2.4%. What will the average property owner see for the city's portion of their property tax bill increase? Based on our calculations, the average home will see a 0% increase, and in most cases we're finding that they'll probably even see a very slight decrease in the city portion of their property tax bill. Recommendation. That we adopt the tax levy budget and CIP as presented this evening. At this point I will take any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Sticha? The city's been through it a few times. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I just want to jump in and thank again the council for your time and energy that you put towards the 2007 budget. You know we started this process really back in June when we started talking about some preliminary numbers and I think since August it was on your agenda almost every night so appreciate your time and effort. I'd also like to thank the department heads for the time and energy that they put in to the overall budget. I just want to note that again this year's budget, there is an increase in there but a lot of that can pretty much be related back to all new growth that's occurred in the community. The additional lights. The additional roads that we put in. Trying to keep up with our legal services, which we were just negotiating here, but I want to counter that other guy. I think we have the best attorney in the state so, but. Roger can handle anything. Councilman Lundquist: That's why he charges so much. Todd Gerhardt: But I just want to, I think this was a great process that we used this year and you know, we spent a lot of time on this and I think you see the results and it just was a great process and thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you and we appreciate staff's effort as well. This is a lot of work and it's not just in the finance department. It's throughout the organization that starts early as well and we appreciate everybody's efforts and diligence. Comments or discussions? City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 45 Councilman Peterson: It has been a long journey and we set the bar high again and staff met the challenge and I'm pleased to support staff's recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur as well. I think it has gotten a little bit easier every year that this has gone along. A lot of the things that we put in place you know key financial strategies and some of the priorities that we set early on I think help that. As we talked about at work session, when I look at a $221,000 levy increase at 2.4%, effectively inflation there. But over half of that, about $120ish thousand or so is for electricity for additional street lights that we put up as we built roads. Pavement management increases as we build more roads and trails, we've got to take care of them. And also for more equipment to take care of those so it comforts me I guess to see that we're there and you know that we're holding that growth of government in check to this year really a less than inflationary increase in salaries, which is the biggest piece of our budget given the fact that we've got to spend more money on some of these other things so, done a nice job Todd and staff has done a nice job of finding ways to provide the same or more service. Continue to pay our employees and increase that pay and benefits, yet finding ways to not put that full burden directly onto the taxpayers, on the property tax levy so like I say, it's not zero like I had hoped as far as percent increase, but we're holding that absolute dollar value in check and given some of the increases, I think that's, it's reasonable so I'm happy to support it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My comments are similar. This has been, as I mentioned before, a long process and, but I agree with Councilman Lundquist that this process has become easier, certainly for the council and I think for staff too is my assessment. Of following long term planning, which we've been doing these last few years, and looking not just at what the next year budget and levy needs to be, but looking forward on what our demands are going to be as we continue to grow. With the adoption of this budget, this will be the fourth year in a row that we're limiting the levy growth to an amount equal to or less than the real growth in tax base. Not even dealing with the inflationary growth and the tax base, and yet in doing so we're continuing to fund increased level of services, investment in equipment, roads, parks, trails and continuing to provide the needs that people are looking for. We are in a period, Mr. Sticha mentioned about the debt. We're using some funds to get us through a short term spike in some debt payments. A year ago, if memory serves, the amount that we thought we'd have to spend this year to do that out of cash was somewhere between $250,000-$300,000. Through efforts on the part of staff to refinance some debt, they knocked that down by about $100,000 before we even started this process. We were about $174,000 of cash that we thought we'd have to use to meet our goals. As we sit here tonight, that's down $63,000 and that $110 plus thousand that was found was again through the diligence and work of the staff. In our work session tonight council challenged staff to find the rest of it and that's something that they're going to be working on and maybe starting with Mr. Knutson, but. There's a lot of opportunities I think in the size of the budget to find that amount of funds and I'm confident that we'll be able to do that. There's certainly a need and within street repairs and reconstruction that we have going forward so. The process was long but was worth while because every time we looked at it we seem to make some progress going forward and that's good and still adhering to long term needs of the city, not just short term whims and reaction. So with that I am happy too to support both the CIP proposal as well as the City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 46 city budget and levy this evening. Is there a motion? We've got staff's recommendation to adopt the budget, CIP and the final levy. Is that correct Mr. Sticha? Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve 2007 budget and CIP and the tax levy of, I was going to say the amount but I can't find it. $9,575,778.00. Mayor Furlong: He's nodding yes so you got the right number. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #2006-92: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adopt the 2007 budget and levy in the amount of $9,575,778; and Resolution #2006-93: to approve the 2007 CIP as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Mayor Furlong: I will start with the first one, if I may, and that's regarding the City Manager performance review. The City Council met in executive session on November 27th, December 4th and again this evening discussing Mr. Gerhardt's performance and compensation as our city manager. Following is a summary of those discussions. Mr. Gerhardt has completed another year of excellent work for our city. He accomplished his personal goals and those of the City Council and together with the City Council and staff coordinated and executed on a number of strategic initiatives for our city. Some of the major accomplishments this year included advancing utility, street and trail improvements in the city's 2005 municipal utility service area in accordance with our comprehensive plan through an inclusive process with property owners and developers. Adopting and beginning to implement the City's updated surface water management plan. I haven't asked for the motion yet. Todd Gerhardt: He put the camera right on me man. Kate Aanenson: It's his last meeting. Todd Gerhardt: Kind of scary. Mayor Furlong: Anybody mind if I continue? And also approving over 1,100 new residential units for it's industrial commercial mixed use developments in the city. Completing the annual City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 47 public safety work plan with Carver County Sheriff's Department that tailor's the sheriff's department's activities to the city's public safety needs and increases emphasize on our priorities. Managing the construction of the city's first fresh water treatment plant, which will be completed within weeks. Completing the planned 2006 street and trail improvement projects. Working with MnDot on the design and beginning construction of the new Highway 212. And on other mutual projects of interest with MnDot and Carver County, including the scoping activities for the Highway 101 corridor between Lyman Boulevard and the Minnesota River. Improving Chanhassen's position and outlook by adhering to our comprehensive 5 year financial budget, debt service and property tax plan, the results of which were demonstrated just a few minutes ago as we approved our 2007 budget and tax levy. And as demonstrated earlier this year by Standard and Poor's reaffirmation of their AA- credit rating. A rating that only the top 5% of the cities in the state receive. The list of accomplishments for Mr. Gerhardt and his staff are too numerous to state here, but as quoted Mr. Gerhardt's leadership and strategic initiative help to make Chanhassen a better place for all of us to live. In consideration of his performance, the City Council discussed increasing Mr. Gerhardt's total compensation in 2007 by 4.5% above that which he received in 2006. At this time I would move that the City Council approve the changes in Mr. Gerhardt's compensation for 2007 as we discussed in executive session, as I have summarized here. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve increasing Mr. Gerhardt's total compensation in 2007 by 4.5% above that which he received in 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, thank you. On behalf of the Chanhassen City Council and the residents we are proud to have you as our city manager and we thank you for your continued service and commitment to the City of Chanhassen. Todd Gerhardt: And I want to thank the council for your support over the years, especially this last year. I think the list that you went through is pretty comprehensive. There were some major, major projects in there, especially the 2005 MUSA area. I've got a great staff here. Very supportive council so without those efforts I don't think we would accomplish those things so I want to thank you and my staff for that support. Mayor Furlong: You're welcome. Any other comments or discussion on that issue? If not, other council presentations? Councilman Peterson: I have a couple comments. I got an email from Councilwoman Tjornhom this afternoon regarding just her regrets of not being here, and I'd like to read it to you if I could. It says due to family commitments made months ago I'm saddened that I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting and wish you farewell Brian. Mr. Lundquist. Now'd be a good time to zoom in on Brian. You leave behind some very big shoes to fill. You are a rare breed due to City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 48 your gifted ability of leadership and your keen knowledge of fiscal details. While we at the city will miss you, I will miss you personally and miss your advice and no longer being a human calculator sitting next to me. Brian, this is not a final good-bye. Please remember me when you're governor. Warmest regards, Councilwoman Tjornhom. I'm not that eloquent. I will just say, well done and thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Appreciate it. Mayor Furlong: And I will concur. I had a chance to review and draft the comments made tonight during the award presentation but you and I joined the council at the same time. Went down the winding trip together and I think that it is, I know that we have had a chance to work together for these last 4 years on a number of issues and I'm going to miss that opportunity to do that so. Whether you knew it or not, we're already trying to think about ways to keep you involved so, with that hopefully this isn't good-bye but you know, we'll see you soon. Councilman Lundquist: Good, thank you. Comments. I was going to release my speech to the newspaper but she left so I guess we'll forget that one. Todd Gerhardt: We can email it to her. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Just make sure she gets the numbers right. So that was my Kofi Annan blast. And but Tom, Craig, Todd and all of the staff, thanks for your help and guidance and you know patience. We all have our little quirks and I guess they come out, but it's been mostly fun. A little bit frustrating at times but overall it's been very rewarding. And something that I'll look back on fondly. It's going to be fun to sit over there like Workman now and harass from a distance as you probably will expect that I will continue to stay involved so maybe gone but not forgotten so. But appreciate everything both of you gentlemen and all the staff have done and look forward to continued success as you go forward and train up the two rookies that are coming on board. So best of luck to all of you as well. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? Council presentations. Councilman Lundquist: And I was supposed to say hi to the kids watching me at home but it's after their bedtime. Mayor Furlong: It will be on tape. They can watch it again. One other quick wrap up, just because this last week Mr. Gerhardt and I attended the National League of Cities Conference in Reno, Nevada. Reno is not richer by virtue of our gambling, not that we were that good at it, but we just didn't do much of it. We spent a lot of time in the conference of course and it was a good conference on that part. I think Mr. Gerhardt agrees, a lot of pertinent issues, topics were discussed. Things that we're dealing with all the time. Infrastructure, financing and funding requirements, storm water management, communication, emergency preparedness, housing, a lot of the issues. It was good from a networking standpoint. We ran into and talked and shared stories with other elected and officials from Minnesota and across the country, and I guess just to summarize what I recognized is that we're doing a lot of things right. We can always listen for and find opportunities to do some things better but most importantly we are way better off than a City Council Meeting - December 11, 2006 49 lot of other people. So as much as we deal with issues and focus on challenges before us, which we need to do, we need to keep it in perspective that we've got a pretty good thing here, and that was clear to me coming out of there. Are there any other comments on that or other discussion items? Todd Gerhardt: You covered it. Nothing to add. Met a lot of new friends. That was key I thought. That was part of our networking. When we're going through Nebraska, we have a place to stay. Councilman Lundquist: Someone who gets there quite frequently… Todd Gerhardt: We'll give you a name and a number. Mayor Furlong: Anything else under administrative? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: I just want to thank Brian for his leadership and dedication these past 4 years. I mean just take a look at some statistics. We've accomplished a lot fiscally. I think we've developed some real sound financial policies and I think Brian should take a lot of credit for that. I know it's a team effort but no question that was Brian's strength and dedication in that. He also looked at the accounts payables and challenged us on those and I'll keep emailing those to him so he can take a look. Councilman Lundquist: They're online, I can get them. Todd Gerhardt: And, but I want to thank you again for your leadership and dedication. You know it's difficult in these times, how busy we get, to find leaders like yourself and being the city manager I appreciate the knowledge and experience that you 3 have and Bethany and it's made my job a lot easier so thank you. And now after we adjourn I invite everybody here to stay and have cake with Brian and the rest of us. We have this picture cake. Councilman Lundquist: Rub it in my proverbial face huh. Todd Gerhardt: As long as I don't drop it, but Byerly's has the skills to put a picture of Brian on there. We're going to cut into him. Councilman Peterson: That we may have to get on camera. Motion to adjourn. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL, REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE SITE IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK, ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET. APPLICANT ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC.,/ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 06-35. Public Present: Name Address Steve Miller 244 1st Avenue, Minneapolis Mike Spack 3268 Xenwood Avenue So, St. Louis Park Jay Pomeroy 7575 Golden Valley Road, Minneapolis Steve Pumper 11 Peavey Road, Chaska Paul Schlueter 427 Campfire Curve, Chaska Phil Standafer 8767 Valley View Place Al Gomez 8748 Valley View Place Chairman McDonald summarized the action taken at the last Planning Commission meeting and reviewed the reasons for tabling. Kate Aanenson and Lori Haak presented the staff report update, particularly addressing the issue of the bluff. Chairman McDonald continued with the public hearing. Al Gomez, 8748 Valley View Place continued to questioned staff's interpretation Planning Commission Summary - December 5, 2006 2 of where the bluff is measured from and if the assumption has been all along that the school district would level this site. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. After commission discussion and comments, the following motions were made. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The 50-scale plans should be revised to clearly depict the wetland boundary and wetland buffer areas. 2. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas should be protected by silt fence during grading. 3. The applicant should keep the goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region in mind as a plan is developed for the site and should work with staff to achieve these goals for this property. The Primary Zone boundary and the 40-foot setback should be shown on the plans. No grading is permitted within the first 20 feet of the 40-foot setback. 4. The erosion and sediment control plan should be aimed at minimizing the amount of exposed soil at any given time and preventing erosion of exposed soil. Sediment control (especially perimeter controls such as silt fence) should be viewed as a last resort. The applicant, the contractor and all subcontractors should recognize that one silt fence at the bottom of a large slope of exposed soil will not be sufficient to protect down gradient resources in even moderate precipitation or snowmelt events. To decrease the potential for discharge of sediment-laden water off-site, the applicant should prepare a plan for phasing the grading of the project. In general, the areas within 200 feet of wetlands should be graded first and permanently stabilized as soon as possible. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as soon as possible after grading to minimize the total amount of exposed soil on site. New areas should not be graded until after previously graded areas are stabilized. 5. Sediment & Erosion Control (SWPPP) Note 2.a.2 on Sheet C1.2 states that slopes steeper than 6:1 should be “cat tracked.” The applicant should take extra measures to ensure that this occurs because cat tracking has been shown to significantly decrease the potential for erosion on long, steep slopes. A detail should be provided for cat tracking. 6. The haul route between the Construction Staging Area and the Temporary Stockpile Area should be shown on the 50-scale plans. Planning Commission Summary - December 5, 2006 3 7. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of grading in each disturbed area. If practical, a seed and blown-compost mix should be considered in lieu of dormant seed and straw mulch. The plans should be revised to call out erosion control blanket locations and to provide a detail for blanket installation. 8. Chanhassen Type II silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer (both 16.5-foot wetland buffers and the 20-foot “no grading” zone around the Primary Zone). The silt fence should be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. Orange tree protection fence should be installed upslope from the Type 2 silt fence around the wetland between Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 and Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 as added protection so equipment operators do not impact the wetland by driving heavy equipment through it. 9. The plans should be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details where available (e.g., Detail 5300 for silt fence; Detail 5301 for rock construction entrance). It appears that detail 3 on Sheet C1.4 is intended to depict the proposed checks within the temporary drainageways shown on Sheet C1.2. This should be clarified and the checks should be installed as often as is necessary to minimize the velocities of runoff in the drainageways. The plans should be revised to show a minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance. 10. In lieu of the proposed outlet pipes for the temporary sediment basins, temporary perforated risers and stable emergency overflows (EOFs) are needed; details should be included in the plan. The basins should be properly sized for the watershed areas, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins should provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipes should discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetlands and should be stabilized with riprap. 11. In the present design, water is routed into the wetland in the northeast corner of the site instead of into Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4. The grading in this area of the site should be revised to ensure that all discharge from disturbed areas is directed into either Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 or Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 prior to discharge into the wetland. 12. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. All temporary stockpiles shall be temporary seeded and mulched within 7 or 14 days, in accordance with the NPDES Phase II construction site permit. Planning Commission Summary - December 5, 2006 4 15. Rock dissipation shall be installed at all pipe outlets within 24 hours of placement of the outlet pipes. 16. Slope lengths greater than 75 feet shall be broken up with a minimum 12-foot wide bench every 75 feet. 17. A minimum12-foot buffer area shall be maintained between the perimeter control and all stockpiles to provide access around the stockpiles for maintenance purposes. 18. Dewatering activities shall only be allowed after consulting with the on-site city inspector of the project to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit for dewatering activities. 19. Silt fence shall be placed parallel to contours. In locations where silt fence will cross contours, J-hooks shall be installed at 75-foot intervals. Silt fence shall not be staked on site by scaling off the proposed plan, but shall be staked by the survey crew taking shots in the field. The applicant shall contact SWCD staff prior to silt fence installation so staking on site can be reviewed to ensure compliance with this request. 20. Drainage swales and ditch cuts shall be employed during mass grading to maintain a positive flow of stormwater to the temporary basins. 21. During final grading of the site, the height of the berm over the sanitary sewer shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements may be required. 22. The developer is required to televise the section of sanitary sewer over which grading operations will occur before and after construction to determine if the site grading damaged the pipe. 23. ISD 112 shall be responsible for repairing any sections of sanitary sewer damaged during construction. 24. The developer must place sanitary sewer manhole sections on the existing manhole to bring the top of manhole up to the existing grade. 25. No more than eight inches of rings is allowed on the sanitary sewer manhole.” All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Planning Commission Summary - December 5, 2006 5 Public Present: Name Address Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive Lori Haak reviewed changes made to Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20. Commissioner Papke asked staff to comment on the items being struck out of Chapter 7 and how getting rid of items is going to improve storm water quality and if there were any controversial items developers might find objectionable. Chairman McDonald asked if developers have had a chance to review and comment on these changes. Commissioner Papke asked staff to further clarify the setback requirements for the different wetland classification. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After commissioner comments the following motion was made. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt ordinances amending Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the City Code to bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 21, 2006 COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, and Kevin Dillon MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL, REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE SITE IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK, ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET. APPLICANT ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC.,/ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 06-35. Public Present: Name Address Steve Miller 244 1st Avenue, Minneapolis Mike Spack 3268 Xenwood Avenue So, St. Louis Park Jay Pomeroy 7575 Golden Valley Road, Minneapolis Steve Pumper 11 Peavey Road, Chaska Paul Schlueter 427 Campfire Curve, Chaska Phil Standafer 8767 Valley View Place Al Gomez 8748 Valley View Place Chairman McDonald: Continuing from our last meeting, Chanhassen High School had presented for us an Interim Use Permit to grade the site in preparation of development of the property that's located on Lyman Boulevard, south of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad. At that time we had tabled the, this application because a question came up concerning is it being built into a bluff or not on the property. Staff then was tasked with going back to evaluate this and to Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 2 present us with a clarification as to whether or not there was a bluff involved within this development. Staff, are you prepared? Aanenson: Yes, thank you. Chairman McDonald, members of the Planning Commission. As you've indicated you tabled this item for the staff to look at the slope issue. I apologize we didn't put this in. We had made that determination and didn't put that information in there previously so again I want to have Lori Haak go through the definition of slope and then I'll go through the process that we went through to determine whether or not it was a bluff. So I'll let her take a minute to explain. Haak: Chair and Planning Commissioners. The bluff ordinance looks a little complicated at first but actually is quite simple. The objective is to of course preserve any steep slopes and by definition bluffs are 25 or more feet from toe to top, and they're 30% or greater slope over that rise. So again, just going back to a rhythm to say I guess rise over run gives you the percentage of the slope. And the third provision as outlined in the staff report basically exempts any areas that may be a bench within that area so if you have a slope that starts quite steep and then levels off and then rises again, those areas if they extend for less than 18% over 50 feet or more are exempted from that. In this case we don't have that entering into play, but that is another part of the definition. Aanenson: Included in your packet was some aerial photography so what I'd like to do is just kind of go through that to show you the history of this property and interpretation. As with all areas that may be qualified for slopes in the city, we do look at kind of the natural features. Typically when we see slopes or, they're also in areas that are heavily wooded, undisturbed because they haven't been able to be touched because of their location and the steepness. So with this we've got some different aerial photography that I'll go through. First, with everybody following along a frame of reference here. This is Lyman Boulevard. The school site. The subject school site and the railroad tracks. Again, because the photography I'm going to show you is a little bit hard to see, I'll click the current frame of reference. So this is 2006. Again the subject site so the frame of reference, Lyman Boulevard and the railroad tracks. I'm going to show you this stand of trees because this stand of trees is one constant that you can see in the project itself in the different aerial photography so we'll go back all the way to 1940, and I think you might have to zoom on this a little bit more Nann. This is black and white. This is in blue you can see the subject site. There's a road going through the middle of that. Kind of that, it was defined as the, what was questioned as a possible bluff site. Again here's the trees for the frame of reference and Lyman Boulevard and the railroad tracks. So this is photography from 1940. Going back to, or coming forward to 1963. Again Lyman Boulevard and the railroad tracks again for frame of reference. This is the trees. You can see pretty much the creek is farmed, or what could be of the creek is predominantly farmed. A little piece is hard to see somewhere in this area. It's getting a little bit more pronounced in here. Moving forward to 1979. You can see it's getting more pronounced. It's farmed all the way around it. There isn't significant vegetation on it. And then moving forward as I showed you in today, 2006. This would be the area. It's continued to grow. And you can see that the farming practices have been removed from the creek, or the flood plain itself and subdivisions have occurred. So with that, as Lori defined the definition, we took the steepest area and created that toe, top of slope and took that percentage. Anything under 30% and we do have that, that opinion has been given by the City Attorney. If Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 3 it's under 30% it does not meet the definition of the slope. So with that, and I'm sorry we didn't have for you at the last meeting. How we got to that conclusion and didn't think it would come up but with that, following on page 2 of the staff report. Based on the geographic information, taking that slope and the results of the data, we believe that there is not the definition of a bluff. And that is the only area that comes close to meeting the 30%. For other reasons, as you can see, it was previously farmed, a lot of that area. So with that we are recommending approval with the issues as stated on the beginning of the staff report. The Interim Use Permit and the Environmental Assessment Worksheet review, and with the conditions of approval of followed on page 8 and 10 in the staff report. And I do believe you left the public hearing open at your last meeting so. McDonald: Yes we did and at this point I guess I would pick up at that point. If there was anyone that wishes to come forward and make comments. What I would ask is that we do not go back over issues that were brought up before because those have been more or less addressed or settled. If there's anything new that anyone wishes to bring up, if they would come forward. Please do so. State your name and address and then whatever comments you may have, address them to the Chair. Al Gomez: I'm back again. My apologies. Al Gomez, 8748 Valley View Place in Chan. I'm the property that's across the bluff. I guess pretty difficult to see in the pictures and understand what part of it becomes wetland versus what part of it becomes the actual bluff itself that were or were not yet farmed. Obviously the colored pictures show more of a color differentiation, which would show alteration in elevation which I'm not sure you would get out of a black and white. My father in law happens to be a farmer in the area and can go back to 1910 and state every farmer that's farmed that property. From Dethelm to Koskie, Carver Bongard, and again that terrain is the same as it's been all along. So the topography may show something different but how much of that is color. The other thing is, at least from where I sit, my back window looks directly up the bluff. Depending on, I guess I need to understand depending on where you start the lowest part of elevation, what's 30 degrees? If it's the middle of the wetlands, I'm not sure that that's fair. If it's the end of the wetlands where the actual bluff begins, I'm having a hard time, and Phil my neighbor, are having a hard time believing that that's 30 degrees or lower. Additionally, and again minor topic but I emailed Bob Generous, obviously the mail indicated if you have questions, please email him. I emailed him asking for a copy of the bluff ordinance and did not get a reply. I subsequently placed a phone call into Bob saying again no indication that you didn't get my email, but I wanted to follow up again. Hope you got my email with the information I sent you about the farmers. Can I get a copy of the ordinance to take a look at it since we too have not seen it and I did not get a reply. So again, I'm assuming that's what staff is there for is to help us citizens get to that information so that we can in turn be more educated with the decisions that you make. Aanenson: Can I just ask, when did you try to contact Bob? Al Gomez: On Monday and Tuesday. Aanenson: I apologize. Just for the record Mr. Chair, Bob's been out sick the last 2 days. I'm sorry. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 4 Al Gomez: Well, then somebody should be checking his emails or something. Aanenson: Correct. Al Gomez: The other question that I don't think was answered last time, that I would like to ask again. We did bring up the question of are the developers or is the school district prepared to build on this property other than if it's leveled, and that was not addressed. So has the assumption been all along, or been an understanding that concessions were going to be made to be able to level this bluff prior to the discussion around the bluff ordinance for them to build on this property? Aanenson: I'm not sure I understand the question. I think even if it is guided and also industrial, I think there was, no matter what use was to go on that site, there was an assumption that there would be grading on the site. I mean we have that with every industrial park so, depending on the foot print of the building, depending on the overall plat layout, there is an inherent assumption that there's going to be grading on the site. Al Gomez: To the degree of the 25 feet and the numbers where. Aanenson: Well I would assume if it was compatible to an industrial park, it might not one single user might have been that big but in compilation, there would probably be the same amount of quantities. I don't know if you want to add anything to that Alyson. Fauske: The challenges of the site are, there is a large grade differential from where they want their building pad to, down to the creek area. Certainly the pipeline presents a huge challenge for the grading operations and just the use that they've proposed on the site. The area that they need to provide all the facilities for the school have indeed presented itself as the Planning Commission sees here. Al Gomez: So the gas line is pushing the fact that the, to have the use of the land they would have to grade it? I'm assuming that's something they took into consideration or studied prior to buying the property. So as they bought the property, was there an understanding that there was going to be approval to level that bluff? And to your point that in previous considerations that there was an understanding that there would be grading, again all I got, I have to go by is we've had Nancy Mancino on our property when we discussed high density developments in that area and the indication from Nancy, who was the mayor at the time, was that that was protected by the bluff ordinance so there was not discussions around there would be grading. From my experience. McDonald: I guess as far as any conversations about this particular piece of property, that's beyond the scope of what we actually know or had presented to us. That would probably be between the developers and whoever bought the property but what they've brought before us is mainly a plan and what they're asking for is permission to do grading based upon the ordinance and that's all that we can actually look at. Anything beyond that, what I would suggest is, you could talk to them and find out but I'm unaware of anything. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 5 Aanenson: Let me just clarify too. When the school district bought this property they didn't know what it was going to be. It could have been a middle school or a high school. That decision was made at a later date, you know when they actually did their analysis. When the first acquisition, they were under study. We always said it was proposed secondary schools how it was notified, because they didn't know themselves until they went through their study exactly what it was going to be so, to say we always knew it was going to be a big high school isn't a fair statement. Al Gomez: And again for clarity for us, the slope and from where it's measured. To the top of the bluff is at the bottom of that hill, not beyond and into the wetland. Aanenson: That's correct. Al Gomez: Okay. And that shows to be less than 30 degrees. Aanenson: Correct. Al Gomez: Okay. Because again, we're having a tough time with that because we look at it every day. Aanenson: Understood, yeah. Yeah. McDonald: Okay, does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay seeing no one come forward, I close the public meeting and I bring the discussion back up before the commissioners. Kevin, I'll start on my left. Dillon: Yeah, it's kind of like the person who was just speaking alluded to, there seems to be the potential for some subjectivity as to how you were to measure this hill, or bluff. You know I mean, you know where you exactly say the bottom is. It levels up and the toe of it is and you know, I mean the top part I suppose is a little bit easier to define. The highest point of it but I mean when we're talking you know 29.9 degrees and 29.7 degree slopes, I mean you know that little bit of subjectivity may play a role so, two people may come to a different conclusion on that. So I mean, just based on that, I mean it's a real close call so. The other thing is, I apologize. I was not at the last commission meeting. I couldn't be here so, what's the, like the Reader's Digest version of the city code on the bluffs? You can't built on one? Aanenson: That's correct. Dillon: Okay. That's the only question I have for right now. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: No. McDonald: Debbie? No? Okay. Kurt? Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 6 Papke: Kind of following up on Commissioner Dillon's line of reasoning there. In this particular case, since we're so close, obviously people will ask the question. How did you exactly come to that answer? Did you get two people independently verify it? Could you speak to, since it is so close, what you did to make sure that the number was that on. Aanenson: Sure. All slopes, if you physically walk and find that natural break, as Lori indicated, where that natural start the rise is, would be. So that's one indicator. And there was 2 or 3 people that did the independent calculation. And also on the school district, which I didn't show that one but if you look at the school district plans, they also have their own, this is the City's data but we also used, and that's in your packet. I didn't go through that one but the school district also has their grading plan. The existing grades that they put on there, and that also cross checked and was a couple percentage point different. So we did take the steepest portion of it, so yes. We had a couple people look at it. And field check. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Just one more question on that. I mean when I look at the picture, the 2006 slope analysis I see, it does rise above the 972 and then it does go below the 906. But what you're saying is that you must start somehow do this, kind of like that. Aanenson: Yep, that's correct. Right. Keefe: I don't know how you do it but… Aanenson: And that's the point that Lori went through when she was looking, when she was explaining it to you. You kind of have to find that, you can always find one little segment that may be kind of, so you have to kind of find that natural, where that segment is. Keefe: Well, but that's the problem because you're at 29.9. I mean if you're 20 it wouldn't be you know. Aanenson: Yes. Keefe: And if by ordinance it's 30%, you know. Haak: But to be fair, I'm sorry. Keefe: It could be 28 too and… Haak: And this has gone both ways for the City. You know we've had 30.1 and we've had 29.9 and we've made decisions either way. Keefe: Right. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 7 Haak: So it is very much a call where we've had subdivisions that have come in with 29.9 slopes and we've you know, there's no preservation under the code with that and, but with you know 30.1 it is. So and again, we've had that interpretation that it's just a matter of where you draw that line and the line is 30. Aanenson: And just like a wetland delineation, we field check those too. Keefe: It just seems that you know to me that, since we've gone to the extent of putting the definition of bluff and the emphasis on trying to, to save bluffs, that we're at one which is close. We would err on the side of determining that it is a bluff versus determining that it isn't a bluff since we've gone, any thoughts on that? Aanenson: Lori raised the argument that it's come up as the City Attorney's done it, if you're at, with the 30.1, then you're penalized. I'm so close so you have to, it's what it is. It's that elevation and it gets, it goes both ways. Whether it's a penalty or a favor. So, and also, you know part of looking at this, when we put together the bluff ordinance city wide, because originally it was just down on the river bottom. Was to save those areas where there was some of those natural features and looking at the past practice of this property, it's not tied, really definitely. It's farmed behind it and it still is. It's not really tied into, when you look at other areas with significant stands of trees, which we were trying to accomplish. Where there's been erosion. The thing has grown. The anomaly in itself and what we're trying to preserve some of the natural landform. So could it have grown or risen based on farming practices? There's a lot of rational you know thinking that you have to kind of put into it. That's why we went back and pulled out some of those aerials for you to show you kind of that frame of reference. Because most of the stuff that we have preserved is, I would say the significant portion of it, there are some bluffs that have eroded down in the river. Overlooking the river, but. Keefe: They're no longer natural… Aanenson: Exactly, but a lot of it is just what we're trying to preserve is some of those, that natural topography and this is a knoll. I wouldn't say it's connected to. You know the biggest feature we're trying to save there, and what we're working with the school district on is the increase quality and function of the creek itself. And you can see on that one part, where Lori's already worked to do the remandering on that very treed area and continue that as we move through the creek corridor. McDonald: Okay. Audience: Can I quick ask two questions? McDonald: At this point the public meeting is closed and we're really at a point of deliberating on this. If you have questions concerning this, what I would suggest is after the vote, you can certainly talk to staff afterwards, and again this is going to City Council. I guess based upon that, the only comments I really have for this is, what's actually before us is strictly a grading permit at this point. It has nothing to do with building. All of that will have to come back before us at some other time so, based upon that, you know I have no further comments to make and. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 8 Papke: I thought we were just doing questions at this point. Are we at the point of comments? As well. McDonald: Yep, go ahead. Papke: Okay. Like I said before, before we head into a vote. As I was reading through this I was really trying to think about you know, is this the right or the wrong thing to do and in all the years I've lived in Chanhassen I drive by the high school, the existing Chaska High School very frequently, and one of the things that struck me is, I don't think there's any facility in a city that's used more than the school. Every time I drive by Chaska High School there's hundreds of cars in the parking lot. There's people going in and out for sporting events and activities and school and you know, and I think there's, and since we're going to have to live with this for 50, 100 years, however long this school site lasts, I think it does, as I thought about it, it really made sense to me that we really should optimize the utility of this land and yes, we're going to, there's going to be a tremendous amount of dirt moved and it is from an ecological perspective in kind of a sensitive area. But I think 10, 15 years from now I think we'll be very happy that this was very well graded and very easy to get in and out of because thousands and tens of thousands of trips are going to be made in and out of here throughout a given year so. Although I certainly understand the people who live in the area are concerned with the aesthetics and ecological aspects of it, I think those have been reasonably considered under the ordinance and I think, you know as I really thought about it, this seemed to be the right thing to do for the community for the long run so. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to make comments? Kevin? Dillon: Yeah, just what is the down side to grading the bluff? Is it loss of an aesthetic, beautiful thing or is it going to cause a runoff problem or is it just. Aanenson: It's part of where the building footprint would be so it dramatically changes the location of the footprint of the building and useable area. Because it's not just the bluff area, but to stay away from it, because you can't go behind it. For usability. Because of this footprint. So it's kind of the form of this building. The larger footprint that's, and you've got space behind it. So if you were doing a small, smaller building or something like that, you could accomplish maybe something on the site. Dillon: Well I get the benefit of that but what's the down side to the bluff? You know I mean. McDonald: Well part of the problem is, from last week, there is a pipeline I guess due north. They cannot move in that direction so they are bound by that pipeline, which is off quite a bit from the railroad tracks. So that one constraint. And the next constraint is to get a building of a certain size, and in order to do that, the design that comes out of this is more of a walkout type of a design in order to get the square footage required for the school, so those are some of the limitations that are faced as part of the design. There isn't a lot of movement within that particular piece of property. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 9 Dillon: Well the maybe just for a little extra context here, for those that you know raised the issue last week and had a problem with this, what were they saying was, why were they opposing the extra grading for the bluff? McDonald: Well a lot of that. Dillon: Why are we here this week? McDonald: A lot of that, well what it got into was the design of the building and the effect upon homes across the creek side. And what that was going to do as far as changing the view. Changing aerodynamics was brought up. As far as winds and you know things that could happen across the valley there. Those were brought up, but then the issue of the bluff was brought up and at that point there was not sufficient information to say whether or not they met the requirements of the bluff ordinance, so it was tabled based upon that. Papke: Typically if we reflect back on some of the cases we've had in front of us, Settlers Ridge West probably being the one that stands out in my brain the most, it was erosion control tends to be the major issue. And in this particular case, since there's been how many years of plows going over that soil, it doesn't seem to be you know as critical an issue as it was along the Minnesota River bluff. You know which is kind of the typical case we run into. Keefe: Let me ask you a question. Say this came in at 31%, would we be looking at a variance on this? Aanenson: Yeah. Keefe: More than likely we would be. Aanenson: Right, we would have recommended that, right. Keefe: So if we think of it in those terms, you know. You know I supposed you'd have to demonstrate a hardship associated with bringing a variance in place on that. I'm not sure what the hardship would be associated with this. Aanenson: Well we'd go back to the same analogy that we just gave with the past farming practices, there's not a significant natural feature on top of it and those same sort of rationale. McDonald: Yeah, I mean obviously one of the hardships that we have is the fact of the path, of the pipeline which goes through there which severely limits any building in that particular direction, and at this point they are as far as they can go. Now what you're left with, you can put athletic fields and those things or aprons going up to those fields. That's what you can use for that space. So there are limitations with the property. Does anyone else wish to make comments? Okay. Larson: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 10 McDonald: Okay. Larson: I'm just looking at the slope analysis here and I think they've been very generous in the 29.7 and as I'm looking at this, the steepest portion actually would be, let's see here. 50 feet. Probably be a good 20 feet less than what they're showing so I'm thinking this 29% would really be more, just based on looking at the severity of the slope, I'm thinking it'd be less than 29%. So therefore as I said, I think the City kind of did the worst case scenario of a footprint, what do you call it? Foot and top. Aanenson: Toe. Larson: Toe. Foot. Aanenson: Toe and top, yeah. Larson: So I mean, my thoughts are, it's actually less than 29.7 and therefore I guess I don't see a problem with this. McDonald: Okay. Well, if all the comments are complete, I'm ready to accept a motion on this issue. What he's looking for is on page 8. Undestad: Okay, I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration for the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. Are we doing both right away tonight? McDonald: Yes. Undestad: And that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates dated 10-19-06, subject to conditions 1 through, what do we got? 25. McDonald: Can I have a second? Thomas: Second. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a resolution of Negative Declaration of the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Chanhassen High School Campus. All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an Interim Use Permit to permit grading on the property in preparation of development, plans prepared by Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 11 1. The 50-scale plans should be revised to clearly depict the wetland boundary and wetland buffer areas. 2. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas should be protected by silt fence during grading. 3. The applicant should keep the goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region in mind as a plan is developed for the site and should work with staff to achieve these goals for this property. The Primary Zone boundary and the 40-foot setback should be shown on the plans. No grading is permitted within the first 20 feet of the 40-foot setback. 4. The erosion and sediment control plan should be aimed at minimizing the amount of exposed soil at any given time and preventing erosion of exposed soil. Sediment control (especially perimeter controls such as silt fence) should be viewed as a last resort. The applicant, the contractor and all subcontractors should recognize that one silt fence at the bottom of a large slope of exposed soil will not be sufficient to protect down gradient resources in even moderate precipitation or snowmelt events. To decrease the potential for discharge of sediment-laden water off-site, the applicant should prepare a plan for phasing the grading of the project. In general, the areas within 200 feet of wetlands should be graded first and permanently stabilized as soon as possible. Disturbed areas should be stabilized as soon as possible after grading to minimize the total amount of exposed soil on site. New areas should not be graded until after previously graded areas are stabilized. 5. Sediment & Erosion Control (SWPPP) Note 2.a.2 on Sheet C1.2 states that slopes steeper than 6:1 should be “cat tracked.” The applicant should take extra measures to ensure that this occurs because cat tracking has been shown to significantly decrease the potential for erosion on long, steep slopes. A detail should be provided for cat tracking. 6. The haul route between the Construction Staging Area and the Temporary Stockpile Area should be shown on the 50-scale plans. 7. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of grading in each disturbed area. If practical, a seed and blown-compost mix should be considered in lieu of dormant seed and straw mulch. The plans should be revised to call out erosion control blanket locations and to provide a detail for blanket installation. 8. Chanhassen Type II silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer (both 16.5-foot wetland buffers and the 20-foot “no grading” zone around the Primary Zone). The silt fence should be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. Orange tree protection fence should be installed upslope from the Type 2 silt fence around the wetland between Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 and Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 as added protection so equipment operators do not impact the wetland by driving heavy equipment through it. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 12 9. The plans should be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details where available (e.g., Detail 5300 for silt fence; Detail 5301 for rock construction entrance). It appears that detail 3 on Sheet C1.4 is intended to depict the proposed checks within the temporary drainageways shown on Sheet C1.2. This should be clarified and the checks should be installed as often as is necessary to minimize the velocities of runoff in the drainageways. The plans should be revised to show a minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance. 10. In lieu of the proposed outlet pipes for the temporary sediment basins, temporary perforated risers and stable emergency overflows (EOFs) are needed; details should be included in the plan. The basins should be properly sized for the watershed areas, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins should provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipes should discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetlands and should be stabilized with riprap. 11. In the present design, water is routed into the wetland in the northeast corner of the site instead of into Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4. The grading in this area of the site should be revised to ensure that all discharge from disturbed areas is directed into either Temporary Sediment Basin No. 3 or Temporary Sediment Basin No. 4 prior to discharge into the wetland. 12. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. All temporary stockpiles shall be temporary seeded and mulched within 7 or 14 days, in accordance with the NPDES Phase II construction site permit. 15. Rock dissipation shall be installed at all pipe outlets within 24 hours of placement of the outlet pipes. 16. Slope lengths greater than 75 feet shall be broken up with a minimum 12-foot wide bench every 75 feet. 17. A minimum12-foot buffer area shall be maintained between the perimeter control and all stockpiles to provide access around the stockpiles for maintenance purposes. 18. Dewatering activities shall only be allowed after consulting with the on-site city inspector of the project to ensure compliance with the NPDES permit for dewatering activities. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 13 19. Silt fence shall be placed parallel to contours. In locations where silt fence will cross contours, J-hooks shall be installed at 75-foot intervals. Silt fence shall not be staked on site by scaling off the proposed plan, but shall be staked by the survey crew taking shots in the field. The applicant shall contact SWCD staff prior to silt fence installation so staking on site can be reviewed to ensure compliance with this request. 20. Drainage swales and ditch cuts shall be employed during mass grading to maintain a positive flow of stormwater to the temporary basins. 21. During final grading of the site, the height of the berm over the sanitary sewer shall be reduced to the maximum extent practicable, otherwise additional drainage and utility easements may be required. 22. The developer is required to televise the section of sanitary sewer over which grading operations will occur before and after construction to determine if the site grading damaged the pipe. 23. ISD 112 shall be responsible for repairing any sections of sanitary sewer damaged during construction. 24. The developer must place sanitary sewer manhole sections on the existing manhole to bring the top of manhole up to the existing grade. 25. No more than eight inches of rings is allowed on the sanitary sewer manhole.” All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, PERTAINING TO THE SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Public Present: Name Address Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive Haak: Thank you Chair and Planning Commissioners. As the Planning Commission is aware, over the past 2 years the City of Chanhassen has been working to update it's 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The Second Generation Plan, or SWMP as we affectionately call it in the office, was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2006 and was adopted by the City Council on August 28th of this year. For the reference of the public, the plan is available on line at the city's website. The SWMP process, the update process really included a lot of review of the City's goals and policies and recommendation of standards that could be implemented for the purposes of primarily development and review but also other development Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 14 within the City of Chanhassen. So before you this evening are Chapters 18 and 20. Some proposed revisions to those two chapters, as well as pertinent revisions to Chapter 1, which contains the definitions. Also included in your packet were some proposed revisions to Chapter 7, 13 and 19, and those are primarily for your information so you can see the breadth and the depth of the code revisions that are being proposed. Those do not require public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. So if it is, if the Chair is amenable, what I'd like to do is go through each of the chapters and then if the Planning Commission has questions on each chapter, perhaps we can address those at that time individually so that by the end we'll hopefully have taken care of them all and can proceed in some sort of fashion that makes a little sense. McDonald: Okay, go ahead. Haak: Is that fine? Alright, very good. Your staff report includes real brief summaries of the changes, and I'll just go through those. Really in Chapter 1, starting with the definitions, the primary changes to the definitions come from the wetland ordinance. There is a revision to the classification system of wetlands. In 1992 through 94 the City conducted it's own wetland inventory and that was done using a very loose classification system that was actually developed by the City. With the code, the Surface Water Management Plan Update we're implementing the, it's called the MnRAM or the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for wetland evaluation, and those classifications are preserve, Manage 1, Manage 2, Manage 3 and those classifications would replace the current classifications of pristine, natural, ag-urban and utilized. So those are really the big changes. Additionally, we added an administrative wetland permit from wetland management activities so that property owners who would like to conduct wetland management, burning, mowing for control of invasive species, those sorts of activities, would not require a full wetland alteration permit but would have to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council, but rather be able to acquire an administrative wetland permit, and we believe that that's a much better use of staff and commission and council time than requiring full blown alteration permit for those. And then just a couple other definitions including wetland inventory, city wetland inventory. The NPDES permit, which is a storm water permit. Storm water pollution prevention program, which is one component of that permit. And WCA agent, or Wetland Conservation Act. WCA Agent, which is just giving basically staff the authority to conduct wetland related activities. So with that, those are the definitions that are proposed to be added to Chapter 1. Are there any questions from the commission or the Chair on those? Very good. Chapter 7 really, the purpose of the changes to Chapter 7 are really to enhance the erosion and sediment control measures that are required with grading permits, and that's kind of the bottom line with Chapter 7. It has to do with building permits and grading permits and those are the changes that are being recommended. Any questions on 7? Papke: Yeah. The changes to Chapter 7, one of the things that stood out for me as I was reading through them is, normally, well one of the goals here was to tighten things up and yet in Chapter 7, a number of things were stricken from the code. You know one almost gets the impression that we're loosening things up. We're not having people put topsoil down. Could you briefly comment on the things that are being struck out of there and how getting rid of some of these things is actually you know going to improve our storm water quality. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 15 Haak: Absolutely. Several of the items have been moved from Chapter 7 to Chapter 19, which is dealing a little bit more with development of sites and things. We actually included, and I'll get to that in a minute, an additional section on storm water management in Chapter 19. So some of those items have been moved. In addition, since this code was written, since Chapter 7 was implemented and these particular sections that you've noted were included in code, there has been a change in the way that the State handles construction and so a lot of these things are things that are covered by the State Construction Permit. So we wanted to remove some of the redundancy and streamline our ordinance a little bit because anything over 1 acre in size, whether it's an individual site or a common plan of development, so a subdivision or something like that, requires a State Construction Permit. So because those are in place, there are more stringent rules than, and basically this became redundant. McDonald: Does that address your issue? Papke: Yes it does, thank you. McDonald: Okay. Go ahead. Haak: Alright. In Chapter 13, Chapter 13 is the nuisance ordinance and we had, because, I'm sorry. Because Chapter 13 did not really adequately address storm water pollution and non- permitted discharges to storm water, we wanted to make some revisions that would restrict pollution of wetlands and storm sewers, so those are the changes that are proposed for Chapter 13. And actually as a note, staff wasn't particularly pleased with the language that we found for Chapter 13 so that actually will be modified slightly between now and the City Council meeting. So we have found some additional ordinance language that more accurately reflects what we actually would like to restrict. And spells it out more clearly because if you read the current proposed language, things like fertilizer or things like natural accumulation of leaves and things like that would potentially fall under that ordinance, and clearly those aren't nuisances so. Are there any questions? McDonald: Any questions on 13? Okay. Haak: Okay. Very good. Chapter 18. Again we did remove the requirement for 4 inches of topsoil from this section, and again that's one of those that is covered in another section and/or is covered by the construction site permit. And then throughout the code you'll see this in Chapter 20 as well, the City's Best Management Practices Handbook was developed in 1992 and adopted in 1994 and has since become obsolete so we wanted to remove those references to that particular handbook and then update it with a reference to the City Surface Water Management Plan. McDonald: Can I ask you a question, just so I'm clear. On this construction site permit. Now that now becomes a State mandate which is why we've changed some of this to, because now that applies and a lot of what we had is in that particular document? Haak: Correct. It's already covered by that, and actually the State construction permit does quite a good job addressing erosion and sediment control issues so it's far more stringent than almost Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 16 thing that was on the books anywhere else so we're quite comfortable with the provisions of that permit, and we do as a city have the authority to enforce that permit so that puts us in a good position. McDonald: Any other questions? Haak: Okay. We're really getting into the meat of it. In Chapters 19 and 20. Sections 19-01 and 19-02 would be amended to prohibit illicit discharges. Again it's similar to Chapter 13. Into the storm sewer system and illicit discharges, contrary to how it might sound, are actually you know discharges that are pollutant related, and again this Section will probably be revised a little bit before the code revisions go to council. Then with Chapter 19, the major revision is that we're repealing an entire section of the code. Moving it to the end and then inserting a section that deals with the development guidelines that must be adhered to by Subdivision, or people who are developing within the City, and that's something that previously had not existed in city code. It's something that we often needed in city code and that developers would request. Where's the code that requires treatment of water, storm water runoff to NURP standards? To water quality standards. Where is the rate control requirement in city code? And those were very nebulous requirements and kind of scattered throughout the code so we really wanted to put this into one section that could be used by people proposing projects. So Sections 19-140 through 19-146 will accomplish that for us, and they will increase the City's ability to comply with our own NPDES permit which is a city wide permit. And then the current Sections 19-140 through 19-148 are basically being picked up and moved to 200 to 208. So they will remain intact the way they are. They're just being relocated in code to make it a little bit, make it flow a little more, a little better I guess. Papke: This is pretty meaty stuff here. Haak: Yes. Papke: I don't have too many detail questions but just kind of an overall question. Is there, since this is, as you say, this is what the developers are really going to have to tow the line on, is there anything in here that you suspect developers might find objectionable, overly restrictive or somehow controversial in nature that you think you might get some push back on? Haak: I'll have Alyson jump in on this as well, but really in our review, I think a lot of it is similar to what we're doing now. There aren't a lot of things that are very varied. It's a lot more detailed than we're able to provide developers now and it's in more of a checklist format. But Alyson, if there are any specific things that come to mind. Fauske: Thank you. Looking at, I'm on page 3 of 11 of this section. Near the top of the page. Item number 5 with regards to land locked storm water basins. Basically this is an issue where you'll have a deep basin that we just can't physically outlet. We don't have an overland outlet to basin and these are of concern where we get events like we had last September and October, large rain events, and so this section is…back to back 100 year storms. That's a little more restrictive, but looking at a land locked basin you typically can't even get a house down to that elevation anyway so we don't feel that it's more restrictive. It certainly might be a little bit of an Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 17 eyebrow raise from a developer but staff didn't feel that it was anything that would restrict any development rates through there. Developers have been very perceptive to storm water issues that through the past few years we've been very, very wet conditions so they, like Lori had alluded to, that this is just the one stop shop for all their storm water design needs. It helps us in the engineering department where we say, these are the design storms you're using and puts everything on the same level as far as design storm amounts and elevations and such so. McDonald: Can I ask a question about that? Okay, I understand the other chapters, you know we've had a public review and meetings of that. Was Chapter 19 also out there for public comment or is this the first time this is coming through? What I guess I'm getting at is, you brought up the issue of developers. Have they had an opportunity to actually look at this and supply comment back? Haak: Well this was all included. Actually this language was lifted from one of the appendixes, appendices, I'm sorry, of the plan, so it has been available on line. And actually I've talked to certainly Lundgren has, I'm sorry. They're now Lenar. I'm sorry, they change a little bit. But Lenar has requested a copy of this and has reviewed it and Matt Goldstein from their company has been interested in our proposed ordinances. McDonald: Did he give you any kind of comments or feedback? Haak: No. I think again I really think that this is really on par with what's going on out there and there's really not a lot that's different. And truth be told, we have very few lack locked basins within the city of Chanhassen. Most things are connected. We have a lot of water resources so. McDonald: Okay. Are we ready for 20 then? Haak: Alright. Chapter 20. Again, in a drastic housekeeping measure, staff and our consultant are recommending repealing Chapter, the entirety of Article VI. The wetland protection ordinance and replacing it with a new wetland protection section, or article. And those new sections are, I think laid out in a much more straight forward manner. They do address the new wetland inventory. They outline in a more detailed fashion the requirements for wetland delineations and how the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method, MnRAM assessments are to be done and for which basins they're to be done. There are new wetland buffer requirements and I will go through those a little bit. They, the net increase is very minimal. Even on our preserve wetlands as they would be classified now. The fact is nil actually. There's no net increase in the setback from a preserve wetland. However, the averaging of buffer widths, which is proven to be a little bit difficult to administer in the past, to put it real nicely, is eliminated and it makes it much more straight forward not only for staff but also for applicants, especially homeowners who would be near these basins. The thing to call out also about those wetland buffer requirements and setbacks is that they would not change for existing homes. So that's something that staff felt strongly about is if a home was approved on a given lot width, a 16 1/2 foot buffer, that would be what is required. This is only for new subdivisions so what it is in the development contract would apply. In addition there would be additional protection for wetland buffer strips, including requiring them to be located on the title and the registered land survey Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 18 and requiring drainage and utility easements, which is something we typically require as a condition but it has not been part of our code to this point. And then again, as I mentioned earlier, the administrative wetland permits allowing staff to handle some of those vegetation management activities. Again, the second bullet point there under Chapter 20 would be the replacement of the City's Best Management Practices Handbook terminology with the Surface Water Management Plan terminology. And then final bullet point under Chapter 20 would be prohibiting reconstruction of impervious surface within the bluff setback unless it's specifically authorized within that Article. We have had some questions regarding things like you know parking lots or retaining walls. Things of that nature, and retaining walls are addressed in that Article already so. McDonald: Let me ask the question, because you said something that I'm kind of wondering about when people come before us. Haak: Sure. McDonald: You said that currently, whatever they've got for a bluff setback would exist. We're not going to impose the new rules on existing houses. Haak: For the wetland setback. Okay. McDonald: For the wetland setback. What happens if they now come before us after this is passed and they want to do a deck or something and it makes a difference, which rules do we apply to that? Haak: If it's a lot of record as of the date of the day of adoption of this ordinance, then it would fall under the previous rules. McDonald: Okay. Haak: So if say Jerry you bought a, or I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. You bought a house and you're next to a wetland and you had a 10 foot buffer requirement there at the time when that was the case. And a 40 foot setback. Then that would go with that property because that's outlined specifically in the development contract in rule at that time. McDonald: Okay. So we're not going to have a problem with trying to. Haak: Are there any additional questions on Chapter 20? Papke: Yeah, I had one. On page 8 here you were going to go over the setbacks a little bit more but before you get into it, just a question. The percent of buffer strip and native vegetation when it's not 100%. You know for the Manage 2, Manage 3 it's somewhere between 50 and 100%. What does that really mean to a developer? Does that mean I can't grade in that area or, okay. So it has to be, if it's not native, what does it let me do? Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 19 Haak: Sure. Well there is, there's an entire section on buffer strips on 20-412 and it basically goes through kind of the sequencing process where the current buffer is evaluated by staff and if it's unacceptable under (h). 20-412, if it would be unacceptable there would need to be a landscaping plan, and so if it is currently under 50%, you would need to make alterations within that buffer to get it to that 50%. And really the native vegetation does protect the wetlands to a good extent, which is why it's very important to have the native vegetation around those wetlands. Papke: So I'd have to find cattails. Haak: Preferably not cattails. There are some other buffer vegetation, and staff is certainly willing to provide assistance in that. McDonald: Any other questions? Okay, if you want to continue then. Haak: Okay. Well that was fairly quick. Alright. So with that, staff is recommending the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed revisions to Chapters 1, 18 and 20 and then adopt the motion as outlined on page 3 of your staff report. With that I'm willing to take any more questions you might have. McDonald: Does anyone of staff have any questions of any of these chapters? I'm sorry, do any of the commissioners have questions of staff on any of these chapters before we go to the public meeting? Okay, then in that case what I would do is open this up to the public for comment and again, at this point what we are here to review are Chapters 1, 18 and 20. As Chapter 7, 13 and 19 have already gone for the public comment. So anyone wishing to make comment or, I ask that you come to the podium. State your name and address and address the Chair. Well, seeing no one come forward, I close the public meeting and I'll bring it back before the commissioners. So I'll bring it back up for the commissioners for comment. Dan. Keefe: I'm fine with all the changes. McDonald: Okay. Thomas: Same. McDonald: Debbie? Mark? Undestad: Very thorough and in the right direction. McDonald: Alright. I too am very thrilled and you've done an excellent job and I like the idea of consolidating things and getting them simplified and hopefully this will make it easier for people to know what they face for development. At that point I think we're ready for a recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2006 20 Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt ordinances amending Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the City Code to bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. McDonald: Do I have a second? Dillon: Second. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt ordinances amending Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the City Code to bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 21, 2006 COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2006 Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Tom Kelly, Paula Atkins, Jeff Daniel, Steve Scharfenberg, and Anne Murphy STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor; Tom Knowles, Recreation Center Manager; Susan Bill, Senior Center Coordinator; and Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2006 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY EVALUATION. Nate Rosa reported on the 2006 tree lighting ceremony. 2007 WINTER PROGRAMS. Nate Rosa outlined the different winter programs being offered in 2007. RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Tom Knowles presented the quarterly report for the Chanhassen Recreation Center highlighting his final paragraph, 2006 in review, which notes the decline in revenues over the past year. Chairman Stolar suggested targeting the needs of seniors. Commissioner Scharfenberg suggested holding a special meeting with Mr. Knowles to brainstorm about different options to increase revenue at the rec center. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Susan Bill reported on the activities of the senior center. PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Dale Gregory provided the report on park and trail maintenance in the city. ADMINISTRATIVE: RESIGNATION OF ANNE MURPHY. Anne Murphy announced her resignation due to a job transfer out of state. Chairman Stolar presented her with a Certificate of Appreciation. Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the Park and Rec Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Park and Rec Commission Summary - December 12, 2006 2 Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Tom Kelly, Paula Atkins, Jeff Daniel, Steve Scharfenberg and Anne Murphy STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor; Tom Knowles, Recreation Center Manager; Susan Bill, Senior Center Coordinator; and Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was approved as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2006 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY EVALUATION. Rosa: Thank you Chair Stolar and commissioners. The tree lighting ceremony happened on Saturday, December 2nd. It was a bitter cold night so that kind of reduced the number that we had there, but the people that were there enjoyed it. I want to bill out two really special thanks out. One to the Chanhassen Dinner Theater for bringing some live, in costume carolers, which was a last minute addition. That was like a $1,000 comp that they did on us so I mean that's pretty nice there. And then thank you to Mark Halla also with the Mustard Seed. He provided Santa Claus and himself as an elf free of charge this year so usually that's a service we paid the previous person in the past but this year they said you know what, we'll do it for free. So from that we had roughly 75 people in attendance. It went pretty well. We added some different colored lights this year. Dale's crew did that so we thank them for that. Added different colored lights this year rather than the standard ones, and you created a lot of rave reviews from that. That's about it for the tree lighting ceremony. Any questions? Daniel: Just I attended and it was a very nice event. A little chilly that night but it went really well. It was very nicely run. Rosa: It's the one cold week. Daniel: I said on Saturday, last Saturday, I said kids, let's… Stolar: Alright, thank you. Nate you want to talk about the winter programs? Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 2 2007 WINTER PROGRAMS REPORT. Rosa: Next up is the 2007 winter programs. If you remember at all, and you may not, all of them are actually similar to last year. Actually all of them are the same. We did have to cut back on two programs. One being the Timberwolves game, just because it fell on December 28th, and we already have another program going that day so it's nothing we could double up on. Another one is the Disney on Ice but those actually, because of the way the rotation went, don't come until February and March so that's something that we have coming in our future book, possibly to a night. Other than that you'll see it broken down to preschool programs, youth programs, and adult programs. And it is what it is I guess. Is there any questions with that? Stolar: No. Alright, thank you. RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Knowles: Thank you. For my report this month I would just ask the commissioners to sort of glance through my first several paragraphs. They deal with the day to day operations at the rec center which are basically in pretty good shape. We're doing fine out there on a daily basis. However I would like to direct more careful attention to my final paragraph, 2006 in review wherein the news is not as good. Apparently for 2006 we have done a decent job of containing our expenses. It looks like we're going to fall well within our budget for expense side of things. However our revenues certainly will fall well short of expectations for 2006. Largely I think this is a reflection of the fact that this is the first full year that Lifetime Fitness has been opened up down the road. There are also other fitness operations that have opened up within the community or expanded recently and it's taken a little bit of a slice out of our business. More so than I really expected actually. Be that as it may, it's an unfortunate situation. It's something I'm not happy with but it does sort of lend itself to further discussion on what we can do in the future to sort of increase our numbers, both in revenues and bodies to the building. I've begun some ongoing discussions with a couple people who are running exercise programs that we can, that can be brought into the recreation center. Hopefully get more people involved in exercise and fitness that way. One of which is a fellow that, actually Nate and I have talked to about doing some golf programming. He's also recently received his certification in personal training so I think that might be a good fit for us. Some sort of nitch programming or nitch fitness kind of program that we can offer. At any rate it's a year ahead of us I think is a year of challenge for us. I think we may be looking at changing some directions out there at the rec center. Like I say, the process has actually begun but I would solicit any opinions from any of the commissioners or any of the city staff who has any thoughts at all about what we might do with the ultimate goal of you know enhancing our services that we do provide out there so, I'm on the city email system. My prefix is tknowles and I would certainly welcome any comments or suggestions that you might have. Stolar: Okay. Does anyone have any that they want to bring forth now? Spizale: I think you're moving in the right direction. I'm thinking of something that other businesses, centers don't have. Golf is a great idea. But I think you're moving in the right direction, to have some things that nobody else has. Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 3 Knowles: Right, it's exactly you know, I mean we can't go toe to toe with Lifetime Fitness. There's just no question about that, and but you know some of this nitch programming may be an opportunity for us. Stolar: I was thinking senior. When I first read this I was thinking senior programming. Knowles: Well, yeah Susan and I, we can get into that a little bit more. We've kind of broken down some barriers about getting seniors out to the rec center with that line dancing program that we brought on this past year. Stolar: I was thinking like, if you think about it, what you want to try to do is find markets not served by the Lifetime's of the world. You know there's focused personal training for seniors as an example. A weekly fitness thing geared towards them and golf fits in that too you know. Get everybody out there the week before the golf season starts you know. Exercise to get your golf swing ready. Knowles: So yeah, I anticipate looking at things like that. I think that's an excellent idea and I think as I say, I think we've sort of broken down some of the barriers about getting seniors out to the fitness center, or the recreation center in the first place so maybe we can expand upon that and maybe get them out there for some physical training. Stolar: The other thing I was thinking that Lifetime doesn't offer is focused classes so at Lifetime you've got to go through this 6 or 7, and same thing at the rec center. You've got to get your test thing and then you've got to do this and this. But if someone just has a particular focus that they want to have happen or particular you know, basically part of their body or a particular cardiovascular or they want to build up strength in their legs, you know similar to the kind of the golf idea too. Just offer that you have specialized personal training courses that are different than going through the whole rigamarole. Knowles: Right. Murphy: I was just curious, are those yoga and Pilates classes pretty well attended? Knowles: They're holding their own. They're not bursting the walls by any means but we're holding our own with those classes. Murphy: Because those are also extra charge at Lifetime. I mean if you go to Lifetime, you have to pay for those. Knowles: Right, right. Right, so we're holding our own in those areas. Scharfenberg: Tom, what are we talking about in terms of the numbers? You talk about a significant, what are the numbers financially? Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 4 Knowles: Well on the revenue side I seem to recall our numbers were projected about $175,000 I believe in revenue for the year, and it looks like we're going to come in at somewhere between $125,000 and $130,000. Scharfenberg: Now is that just for the fitness room or is that, when you say revenue, is that for the whole rec center? Knowles: That's the total package for the rec center. Scharfenberg: Okay. Knowles: My feeling is that the largest part of that shortfall does involve the fitness area, both the group fitness classes. The personal training and our daily visits to the fitness room. Stolar: And do room rentals themselves… Knowles: Room rentals are okay. They're holding on. Stolar: Is there a back log there? I mean…ask the question, do we take fitness out and put room rental in? Knowles: Well, you know anything is open to discussion. I actually had one person suggest to me that we might even want to expand our dance program and close up the fitness room and put the dance, another dance studio in there. I mean anything is really open to discussion. Scharfenberg: I would like, or at least request that as a commission we put together maybe an extra session where we meet together with Tom. Kind of like a brainstorming session. Try to do that within the next, you know if we could do it in January sometime. Just so that we can sit down and brainstorm and maybe talk about some goals or long range plan with respect to the, you know fitness area. Stolar: That'd be helpful. Can we have a working session prior to our meeting maybe in January? Hoffman: Sure. Stolar: Does that work for the commission? Knowles: Excellent. Thank you. Stolar: Any other final questions? Thank you. Good idea Steve. Scharfenberg: Maybe Tom ahead of that meeting you could send to us just some information. I don't even know what it is right off hand, in terms of what the budget was for last year. What the revenues were. Maybe what's projected for the coming year and some of that stuff that we can just kind of look over and then have some talking points available for that meeting. Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 5 Knowles: Absolutely. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: We'll include that as a part of the packet. Stolar: Great. Thank you. Hoffman: And as you're thinking forward to frame that conversation, for those who were around at the time that the rec center was constructed, it was constructed basically as a meeting facility and then as a really, there was a lot of needs that just weren't being met at the time. The community was growing. There was not a fitness center here. We were running out of meeting space. There was no place for the community to get together. There was no, we were limited in gyms and so we just tagged on this extra facility on this elementary school, and it ran very well at a fairly high level due to the fact that it was the only game in town. So now you take the one component out, which is one room and kind of the whole fitness component. Personal training. All those things that were not around anywhere else and now they're here in full force obviously. You know just it visualized our one little fitness room compared to a Lifetime Fitness show floor, fitness floor and you've got not even anything comparable as Tom had stated, so. It's not, you can look at it in a variety of different ways. I always seem to look at it as an opportunity. It's an opportunity to change something of the rec center. You know we could take those machines right out. Take walls down. We could keep the machines there and change up the program. But the recreation center, we're not there to, enterprise function. It costs about $250,000 to run the building. The highest revenue year of any was probably around $160,000 over the years, and so now with the loss of the fitness revenue, you know we're losing some of that revenue so, as a part of that brainstorming, are we here to make up revenue or are we here to provide, find the other nitch, the other thing that is missing, because that is what the rec center came here for in the first place and what's missing in our community and should we provide that service back so, that's kind of framing the thought process as we move forward in January. Stolar: So actually it would be helpful if there have been some suggestions or unmet needs that you're aware of, to throw that into the mix of the discussion. Things that you know that people are seeking for us to offer as a community. Scharfenberg: That's what I was going to say. I was just thinking, when was the last time we surveyed any of the people that come through there, just on a, what is it that you like about it? Is there something that you would change? You know something like that would be nice to have that potentially prior to that meeting if we could do some sort of informal survey of the people that show up. Daniel: Yeah, I'll say as far as one thing that I think would be beneficial, and we can certainly talk more about that during this off session, would be the promotion as well. I mean there's, I think good promotion as far as some of the programs that are offered that the city sends out, but outside that you know for example, some of those people who rent some of the rooms. They have clinics, they have other things that they certainly want to talk about, and I don't know how, Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 6 either a web site or if there's a place somehow which you can let the community know on a short term notice versus some longer term planning that the rec department puts out as far as some of the activities. But I think that would be certainly beneficial. Maybe provide an opportunity to increase traffic, which in turn probably increase opportunities for people to come and look at those type of rooms or facilities for renting. Knowles: Thank you. Stolar: Okay. Anything else? Susan. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Bill: I'd like to start off by talking about our annual holiday party. We had it last week and good and bad to say we, this year we outgrew the senior center. We had 94 people in attendance so we had it at the American Legion and it was a wonderful event. That is the only event that I really foresee or plan to take off site. Community Bank sponsored it to help keep the costs down. Bill Traxler and Theresa…were there. Wonderful time. They really enjoyed mingling with the people and being there and it was just a great event. Last year I think we had 75. This year we had 94 and I even had to cut a few people off at the end so it was a really, really nice event. Other things that are going on, I spoke about it in the past. My technology classes. We had one in November called Gadget, Gadgets and More Gadgets and Best Buy, the manager from the Best Buy store in Eden Prairie and…special agent came and they did just a wonderful presentation. We had 20 plus people in attendance. Geek Squad does have an office in Byerly's so that was really nice. We did try to work with Radio Shack here in town but I couldn't, it just didn't work out. So anyway, that was wonderful. And then I've had three other technology classes. All of them have been great. I've had great feedback. We'll look to do one again in the first quarter of the new year and I think we'll focus on Spyware, Anti-Virus information and some stuff like that. People really enjoy…having up to date and current information. The Senior Commission has a fall open house every year and last year they had…64 people in attendance. The topic was transportation. Transportation is an issue that surfaces oh, a couple times a year. So Southwest Metro came and talked as well as Carts and Door to Door Transportation provider for Carver County for…medical appointments and they do some other services. So they talked about what they could and could not provide. …double edged sword where people talk about wanting more transportation, but when it's offered it's not utilized. So it was a really good open discussion and Sharmeen coordinated it and did a great job. My monthly lunch box specials also this fall went great. We had Governor Al Quie to talk about riding his horse from Canada to Mexico and he was still able to walk after. …but he was really a good speaker and people really enjoyed hearing about his adventures. Then I had other speakers and then tried to do entertainment and speakers on local topics of interest so those have been going great and that will continue into the new year. My greeting, recycled greeting card program. Sold over 900 cards and it's like a quarter or 50 cents so that program is really, really going well. A group of women just love making them and it's been a real nice component to the program. Then lastly, one thing I want to highlight, I'm big on community relations and working with other businesses and agencies and I've been trying to get a relationship and a dialogue going with District 112 Community Ed. Talking about we have some space available during the day because a majority of their programs occur in the evening because they utilize school space. And let them know that Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 7 if there were anything ever appropriate to older adults, that we could work together so we are dialoguing on that. The one thing that we started with is shared advertising. I've got my defensive driving classes and extended trip and the new Augsburg College trip and the District 112 booklet, and I did an insert in my newsletter of…classes that they're offering that would be appropriate to older adults. And the book came out last week. I had phone calls today for defensive driving classes, which is pretty good. So that's our good relationship and I'll continue to nurture that. And the last thing, I said the other was the last thing. Lastly our choir the Chanolaires are having a concert next Tuesday. They're a wonderful, wonderful group of performers so it's December 19th at 1:30 if anyone has an hour free. Join us for our Christmas concert and cookies and coffee and hot chocolate. Murphy: Is it here? Bill: It's here. It will be in the senior center so. Hoffman: They like to have an audience. Stolar: You said it was 9:30? Bill: 1:30. 1:30 on December 19th. Stolar: Great. Good, thank you. Any questions? Alright. PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Gregory: Thank you. Well this past quarter and that we've been working hard at trying to complete a lot of our projects that we had ongoing in the summer and that. Lake Susan parking lot expansion has been completed, along with the trail system around the park has been, part of it has been redone and overlaid. We've got it sodded. It's completely all done down there. That also, it really looks nice. The only other addition I see as some trees down around the play equipment and that area around the sod areas and putting, get some trees in there in the future. Curry Farms, we completed that project also. The trail system is overlaid down there. Going up the hill up to Knob Hill, we added that trail in there. And we also have done the same thing there. We've got that all seeded, graded and we also added 12 trees down in that one so, hopefully we're out of there for a little while down there now so get out of your hair down there. Daniel: And it turned out really well. Now the new trees, are they out where you kind of dug out, where the trail goes up? Gregory: They are, presently they're kind of around the play structure. Out away from the play area and that right now. There isn't anything out in that open area. We're keeping that as open area. Daniel: Okay. I've got to pay attention. I was just down there Saturday. Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 8 Gregory: Bandimere Heights down there, we've also removed the old play equipment down there. That basketball court has been put in and the only thing we got put down there yet is the actual basket hoop and that, and the pole. Bluff Creek we've got the hockey rinks completed out there. That we've milled all that and we black topped everything and that so that turned out really nice. We'll get quite a few years out of that now. That's looking pretty nice out there. At least it will put back in some of the use for inline skating. The Lake Ann project, the road reconstruction out there is basically completed. They did get all the seeding and everything in. They did get mulch down and really the only thing left will be in the spring will be the planting of the shrubs, flowers, whatever it calls to be going into the water gardens. Talked with Lori today and she's working with somebody who's actually gone…and so hopefully that will get finished in the spring. We did work on a couple of our trails out by Holiday Inn Express. Bluff Creek we did have water issues on those two trails where water continually drains from hills flowing across the trail created water problems. Got real slippery on the trails and that so we did go in and do some drain tiling and directed it away from the trails. A couple things that we also worked on and that since, since I wrote this and that is the, we had a water issue on a trail out in Stone Creek. It had a small cover. We have a holding pond out there and that and the water, whenever it rains an inch, two inches of rain the water continually drains over the trail. We end up closing that trail every time we get a couple inches of rain. The culvert underneath was just undersized so we worked with Lori Haak in Water Resources and she came up with a plan. Had it drawn up what we had to do and everything else, so basically they paid for it and we took out an 18 inch culvert and we replaced two 48 inch culverts so we shouldn't have any issues of water over the trail anymore. We did finish that project, just about finished it and that. We have the culverts in and come spring we have to realign the trail a little bit and blacktop that. So we did get that part of it done too so. And we start flooding after December 5th…so everything was really going good for the week. We flooded around the clock until Friday and everything turned on us. We didn't expect it to last this long so all we can do is wait. I looked at the 10 day forecast today at work and doesn't look good. I mean even on the inside, the next 7 days is just warm weather so. Hoffman: We'll be starting over. Gregory: All we can do is wait til we get cold weather again. Brought the warming houses in today. I don't know if any of you noticed them or seen them and that. Nate went with different warming house this year. Instead of the Satellites that are up on wheels. He came up with another option of one that just sits down on the ground, so we don't need any steps or anything like that and I think it's going to be a good improvement and that for it. That's all I have. Stolar: Thank you. Any questions? Rosa: And I'll just add to that quick, the shelters on that. I think Todd came up with it so I can't take the total credit since you referred to me. But another thing with that is, it's one complete open base structure. Last year's structures had a door we could close and he could close himself in the office, which did happen from time to time. They shut the light off. Well this way it's just one big open base so the attendants can see and view the entire time so that actually should help with us on issues related to that too. Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 9 Stolar: Great. So is like one of those over at Lotus, North Lotus then? Rosa: Yep. Gregory: There's one at North Lotus and there's one up here. Stolar: Thanks. ADMINISTRATIVE: RESIGNATION OF ANNE MURPHY. Murphy: Well gosh, I didn't prepare a speech but I'm sorry to leave and I really enjoyed working on, I really was excited when I got this position and it's been great. Boy when you move to other cities you don't realize until you leave how great the parks and trails are here. They really are. You don't see the interconnecting trails. We don't, we're looking for houses and we're like, where are all the trails? You have to drive to the parks. It's really different. It's really unique. I think this area is really unique. I really enjoyed working with everybody, especially Todd and Jerry and everybody's really professional so I'm going to miss it. Hopefully we'll move back some day. Stolar: Are you going to join a commission while you're out there? Murphy: Well I was thinking about it but you know I don't know. The parks, it's all different in different states but their parks and rec commissions don't seem to quite have the funding that we have in this state. I don't know, every state's different but I'm moving to Michigan and they don't, some areas are more interested in it than others and some are more well funded than others but, never as good as Chanhassen. Hoffman: Interesting to hear. Good message and the same message that Mayor Furlong brought home from Reno. Mayor Furlong and City Manager Todd Gerhardt went to Reno for the National League of Cities Conference and Tom came home and gave a presentation last night and just Tom's overall comments was you know, even though we have certain issues that we have to deal with here, they're minor and pale in comparison to what he heard about from other states and so he said I think we should just feel really blessed here in Chanhassen and had those same comments. Murphy: They really don't have the interconnecting trails with other places. They just kind of end and then oh well. There's nowhere to go so. Stolar: Have a little certificate for you Anne. Thank you. Certificate of Appreciation presented to Anne Murphy for your dedication and contributions to the City of Chanhassen while serving on the Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission from 2004 to 2006 and a volunteer Meals on Wheels driver. From Mayor Furlong. Thank you very much. And we'll miss you too on the commission and wish you all the best and definitely look forward to your coming back and returning. Murphy: When we, we keep saying when we come back. Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 10 Stolar: Does anyone else have any comments? Spizale: Anne, I'd just somebody new to help with the dog park. Murphy: I'm sure somebody else. Stolar: Well Jack, you've got to carry the weight right now. Alright, well Anne we'll catch up when we're adjourning after here. I guess does anyone have any additional items from the administrative packet? Daniel: I had one question. Regarding the application for Chan/Chaska Hockey Association. Do they pay for using the facilities at City Center and at Bluff Creek? Stolar: No. Daniel: Just because it's, they don't know if given the weather, is that something we've never explored with them or? Ruegemer: You talking for outdoor ice time? Daniel: Right. Ruegemer: No. We haven't charged any groups for using outdoor ice time. Chaska or Minnetonka… (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Hoffman: …change it up a little bit. We had some concerns. We met with them. They're not going to pick the riders up on the street. They're going to come through the parking lot and so that people don't have to go across West 78th Street at that location. We also have a short joint powers agreement that the council will view at their next meeting, which is going to be in January, that we're going to sign between the two parties. It's a temporary thing but it seems to be working out so far. Stolar: And they will put a light in the. Hoffman: They're going to put a solar light. Stolar: That'll be good. Hoffman: Just as some added safety and lighting in the park area. Stolar: Good. I'm glad we're able to do that. Park and Rec Commission - December 12, 2006 11 Hoffman: Yeah, they're out of room down here and they're waiting for their new park and ride. If you take a drive down Lyman you can drive right up into where the park and ride is going to be. It's pretty interesting view from that location. You can see their slip lane and going to be a big facility. Stolar: Any other questions or items? Hoffman: I'd just like to thank the commission for all your hard work this year. For challenging staff. I also would like to thank all of our staff. I think on a yearly basis we take on projects that are challenging and rewarding and benefit the community so it was another good year of projects. We never seem to run out and we're still going today and I just didn't think we'd be working on capital improvement projects in mid December but as long as the weather cooperates, we'll move onto the next one and find something else so we'll soon be into 2007 and then we'll have to pick it up from there so again, thanks to all the commissioners. All your volunteering. All your effort. Without your support the park and recreation department just would not be what it is so thank you. Stolar: Thank you guys too. We do appreciate all that you do for us. With that, do we have a motion to adjourn? Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded to adjourn the Park and Rec Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 8, 2007 SUBJECT: Koehnen/Yosemite Reconstruction, Project No. 07-01: Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids BACKGROUND On September 26, 2005, Council authorized the preparation of the 2006 Street Improvement feasibility report. On January 9, 2006, Council accepted the feasibility report and called for the public hearing for the project. On January 23, 2006, Council held the public hearing for the Koehnen area reconstruction project. In April, 2006, it was determined that the reconstruction project could not be completed until late fall, 2006 due to the MnDOT State Aid Review process for the Yosemite Avenue portion of the project. On April 10, 2006, Council approved deleting the Koehnen area reconstruction from the 06-01 project. On September 25, 2006, Council approved the Professional Services Agreement Addendum. On November 8, 2006, staff hosted a neighborhood meeting On November 13, 2006, Council authorized and accepted the feasibility study and called the public hearing. On November 27, 2006, Council held the public hearing and authorized preparation of plans and specifications. DISCUSSION These proposed street improvements were identified using the City’s Pavement Management program and because of the utility problems in the area. Streets are recommended for reconstruction in the Koehnen area. These streets are 35 years old and are in need of replacement and do not have concrete curb and Paul Oehme January 8, 2007 Page 2 gutter. The reconstruction area includes approximately 1.05 miles of street, including West 63rd Street, Koehnen Circle East, Koehnen Circle West, Cardinal Avenue, Blue Jay Circle, Audubon Circle and Yosemite Avenue (from 6440 Yosemite Avenue to the City limits). Concrete curb and gutter will be included in the street design. Also, the street improvement project will include replacement of all watermain, replacement of some sanitary sewer, installation of storm sewer and construction of storm water treatment ponds. The watermain in this area is cast iron which has resulted in 23 documented watermain breaks. It is recommended to replace the watermain along with the water services in the right-of-way. Televising of the sanitary sewer indicates that portions of this utility are “egged”, sagging and/or cracked. Bolton & Menk, the consultant engineer the City has contracted for this project, recommends that portions of the sanitary sewer exhibiting “extreme” sagging or segments that are cracked be replaced. Storm sewer will be installed and will outlet to one of three ponds that will be constructed in conjunction with the project. The ponds will treat the runoff before discharging to other water bodies. Forty percent (40%) of the street rehabilitation costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners within the project area. The preliminary assessment amount for the Koehnen area is $7,100/lot and is proposed to be assessed over a 10-year period at 6% interest. The total estimate assessment amount is $468,600.00. Funding for this project is proposed as follows: ITEM ESTIMATED PROJECT COST FUNDING $ 1,200,000.00 Revolving assessment fund Streets $ 1,681,888.00 500,000.00 Municipal State Aid Storm Sewer 599,750.00 610,000.00 Storm Sewer Utility Fund Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction 191,808.00 230,000.00 Sanitary Sewer Fund Watermain Reconstruction 610,284.00 660,000.00 Water Utility Fund TOTAL $ 3,083,730.00 $ 3,200,000.00 Paul Oehme January 8, 2007 Page 3 The anticipated schedule of the project is as follows: Neighborhood Meeting March, 2007 Assessment Hearing/Award Contract April, 2007 Start Construction May, 2007 Substantial Completion August, 2007 MnDOT State Aid has received the plans and specifications for the Yosemite portion of the project. Staff has not received any comments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the plans and specifications and order the ad for bids for City Project No. 07-01. c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk G:\ENG\PUBLIC\07-01 KoehnenYosmite Road Imp\01-08-07 approve P&S order ad for bid.doc O O OOO O W 63RD ST C R E E K R U N T R AIL K NOB HILL LANE BLUE JAY CIR AUDUBON CIR R I N G N E C K D R PARTRIDGE CIR W O O D DUCK LN Wood D u c k C i r P H E A SANT CIR TEALCIR PINTAIL CIR WHITE DOVE CIR RI NGNECK D R Y O S E M IT E AVE YOSEMITE AVE YOSEMITE AVE KOEHNEN CIR W 63RD ST W O O D D U C K L N KNOB HILL LANE W OOD DUCK LN YOSEMITE AVE CARDINAL AVE PH E A S A N T D R WO O D DUCK LN KOEHNEN CIR WHITE DOVE DR Ê G:\ENG\Public\07-01\Maps\Koenen Planimetrics.mxd 2007 Street Reconstruction September 19, 2006Proposed Retaining Wall Existing Right of Way Proposed Ponds Wetlands Proposed Streets to be Reconstructed O Existing Street Lights MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. Of Public Works FROM: Gordy Stauff, Engineering Tech. IV/Construction Manager DATE: January 8, 2007 SUBJ: 2007 Sealcoat Project No. 07-04: Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications REQUESTED ACTION Authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the 2007 Sealcoat Project No. 07-04. DISCUSSION A sealcoat program is a cost-effective tool to protect street capital asset and extend the life of the street system. Sealcoating is the application of asphalt emulsion followed immediately with an aggregate cover. Sealcoating of streets is beneficial because it: • Delays or eliminates further aging of pavement due to water and sun. • Seals to provide a moisture barrier. • Fills in raveled pavement areas. • Enriching under-asphalt pavement. • Seals cracks temporary or permanently. • Performs minor leveling. • Restores surface friction. • Economically prolongs the life of existing pavements. Sealcoating remains to be one of the most cost-effective maintenance tools toward pavement management. It is estimated that a sealcoat application extends the life of pavement from three to five years at a fraction of the cost of street rehabilitation or bituminous overlay projects. It is therefore more cost effective to sealcoat roadways when pavement distresses are fewer verses letting the pavement deteriorate until major, costly rehabilitation or reconstruction projects are required. In conjunction with the Pavement Management Program, staff has reviewed the City's street network and is recommending the streets shown on the attached map to be sealcoated in 2007. The estimated cost for this project is $245,000. The cost includes prior street preparation work, traffic control and pavement markings to match existing conditions. The project is proposed to be bid in February and Paul Oehme January 8, 2007 Page 2 have construction start in July. By bidding the project out early, more competitive bids are anticipated. Funding for this project has been budgeted in the CIP (Pavement Management – ST-018). Other projects will also use the pavement management CIP item funds. These projects include the 2007 street project and the public works annual materials (pothole patching, crack sealing materials, spot concrete curb and gutter repair and striping) purchases. The budgets for these projects are $140,000. RECOMMENDATION At this time, staff is recommending Council authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the 2007 Sealcoat Project. Attachment c: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent g:\eng\sealcoat\2007\authorize p&s 010807.doc L ake Ann Park North Lotu sLake P ark Mead owGreenPark K e r b e r P o n d P a r k Pheasant HillPark CurryFarmsPark HermanFieldPark CarverBeachPlayground Greenwood Shores Park CarverBeachPark SugarbushPark Pleasant View Preserve Lotus Lake Lake Lucy Lake Ann Lake Harrison Clasen Lake ChristmasLake San d y H o o k R oad S a n d y Hook C irCheyenneBighorn Dri v e HazeltineBlvd (Hwy41) SommerGate R i n g n e c k Dr. Pheasant D r Hillsd a le Crt S o u t h e r nCrt Chaska Road Moline Cir S t ell e r Cir White Do v e Dr St r a t ton CrtCharing Bend H e ather Court Powers Blvd ( C S A H 1 7 ) S addlebrook P ass Trott e rs Cir K e r b e r Blvd Chippew aCir Chippewa Trail S a n t a V e r a Dr S a r a t ogaDr Saratoga Cir Santa Fe Trail S i e r r a T r a il Sierra Court S h a d o w m ere CanterburyCir R e d w i n g C t . NezPerceCt O x b o w B e nd S u m mit Circle S ta gHornLn Oxbow B e nd Da k o ta Da k o t a Cir c l e Bu c k i n g w o o d C o urt F awnH i l l Cou r t R idge Road B el m o n t L n Lake Lucy Lane C r e s t v i e wCir W h i t e t a i l R i d g e C o u r t M occasin Trai l Indian Hills Rd Y u m a D r K i o w a Longacre s D r Melody Lane P.V. LN. P.V. Cir La ke Lucy Road Lon g a c r e s Dr Faw n Hill R d FAWN H I L L ROAD Highover Drive HighoverCrtS HighoverCrtN Bent Bow Trail GunflintCourt La keway Drive H ors e s h o e L a n e H orseshoe Curve Northwood Court P i p e r R i d g e L n North Man orWash t aBay R o a d Tanagers L n S a n d piperTrail Min n e w a s h t a W o o d s Dr Forrest Cir Forest A v e Oriole Ave 6 4th S t.M elody Hill M u r ra y Hill Road W. 65th St. Hummingbird Rd Melod y Hill Cir HighoverWay Ches Mar Farm Rd Ches Mar Dr Hun t e r Dr Lodgepole Point H a r r i s on Hill T r ail HarrisonHillCourt R e d F o xCircle Brinker St Crocus Ct. TulipCt. Maje s tic Wa y W indmill Dr 5 BANEBERRY WAY E6 CONE FLOWER CRV S7 BLUEBONNET BLVD 10 BLUE SA GE LN E9 POPP Y DR8 CHICORY WAY 13 BUTTER CUP CRT14 BLUESAGE LN W 16 SNAPDRAGON DR 4 PRIMROSE PLACE 2 CLOVER1 BANEBERRY WAY W 3 CONEFLOWER C RV N 12 LADY SLIPPER LANE11 WATERLEAF LA NE E 15 WATERLEAF LANE WWalnut Cu r v e 2 31 5 4 P r ai rie Flow e r B l v d WhiteDoveCir W o o d Du c k Cir PintailCir Partridge Cir TealCir West 63rd St Deer Ridge Cardinal Ave. C r e e k R u n Tr. Audubon Blue Jay Ko e h ne n C ir. Ea stKoehnenCir. West P h easantCir Shadow Lane Ithlien As hton CT Tet o nLane Bret t o n W a y Arlington Ct. WelsleyCt. Pleasa nt View C o v e W ill o w C r e e k Devonshir e Dr P o i n t e Lake Lucy Mulber r y CirEas t M u l b erry C ir W est Peaceful Lane Troendle C i r c l e Tecumseh La n e Shawnee L a n e Redman Ln Utica Lane U tic a Ter r ace U ti ca C ircle U t i c a L ane Frontier Trail South Shore D r Erie Ave Fro ntier C o urt Laredo D r iv e S a n t a Vera D r Laredo Lane SantaFe Cir I r o q u ois Cimarron Cir Santa Fe Cir C anyon C urve S a d d l e b r ook Tr a il C one s t o ga Trail Conestoga Court Butte C o urt PontiacCrt.P o n ti a c Circle Pon t i a c L n Derby Drive Preakness Ln Pimlico Lane F o x H ill D r N a v a j o D rBroken A r r o wDr Rin g o D r C a rv e r B e a c h R d Pi m a L n C h a p a r r a l L n R ed w i n g La n e Kerber Blvd Nez P e r c e D r Wood Hill Dr C r e e D r Po n d er o s a D r Im p er ia l L o ne E a g leRd Carver BeachRd PenamintCt Redw i n g Ln P e n a mint Ln Chap a rral L N Hiawatha Dr Western Dr Chaparral Court Lotus T r a il Mohawk Dr Pawnee V i n elan d C t Fox Path H opi R d Deerwood Dr Q uiverDrive NapaDr. P l easa n t V iew Road Fox P a t hFoxCtLake P o i n t P l e a sant Vie w R o ad Trapper s P ass Mounta i n W a y MountainViewCt N e ar Mou n t a i nBl vd Pie d m o ntCt Cascade Court S h a s t a C ir.W C a s tl e Ridge Highland Dr D el Rio Dr N ez P erce Dr C a s cade Cir Shasta Cir. E Olympic Cir. CastleRidgeCourt C a s c ade P a s s Townline Road Tr a pLin eCircle Tim b e r Hill R d RojinaLane T r a p L ine Ln Pleasant ParkDr Bluff RidgeCrt Gr a y Fo x C urveFoxtail Crt Q u ail C r oss i n g GreyFox Lane H u nters C rtFoxHollo w D r Chanhassen Rd. HWY. 101 Pleasant View Way Ch octaw Cir Br u le C i r cle Kr u v e r s P o int Rd W i ll o w View Cove TwinMap leLn Basswood Cir Plea s antview Road Horse s h o e Curv e M e r r y P l a c e H o ll y L a n eKNOB HILL LANE L a k e w ay La n e W o od Duck L n HighgateCir O r chard L a n e C a ctusCurve S a d dlebrook Curve Briarwood Ct. Galpin Blvd. (CSAH 117) Lake L u c y Road Lake Lucy Road D ia m o n d C o urt Melody HillMurrayHillCrt C e n t u r y Trail Century Blvd 7 Big Woods Blvd Steller Court LucyRidgeCourt Eme raldLane Lucy Ridge Lane BentBow Tr ai l Ruby L a n e T o paz Drive S apphire Lane Ridgeview W a y RidgeviewPoint Vas s erman Trail ShenendoahCircle Golde n Court Lake Lucy R d Tree Top Rd Crestview Dr. C h estnut L a n e Pinehu r s t D r Pinehurst Dr EdgewoodCt Lake Luc y R o a d B r e n d e n C ourt Manchester Drive L a k e H arrison Circle High o v e r T rail F o x D r L a k e Harrison Rd A m berwood LN Alder Way G u nflint Trail Arrowhead L n G u n fli n t T r a il Hill St H i g h c r e s t C ir Yo s emite Yosemite L ila c Lan e L o n gview Cir Del Rio Dr Frontier Trl L aredo Ln 2007 Sealcoat Map December 21, 2006CJ50/Sealcoat07 ©FA-2 Sealcoat