The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Packet 2006 01 09.pdfAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006 CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 5:30 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. A. PCA Environmental Assistance Open Grant, Wind Turbine. B. 2006 Key Financial Strategies. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS 1. a. Designation of Official Newspaper b. Appointment of Acting Mayor c. Appointment of Fire Chief 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. 2. a. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 12, 2005 - City Council Summary Minutes dated December 12, 2005 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated December 12, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated December 6, 2005. - Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated December 6, 2005. b. Amendment to the 2006 City Council Meeting Schedule. c. Amendment to Chapter 18 of City Code; Subdivisions. d. Amendment to Chapter 20 of City Code; Zoning. e. Enterprise Rent-A-Car: Request for Conditional Use Permit to Rent Automobiles at 227 West 79th Street (Located at Master Collision). f. 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01: Approval of Drainage & Utility Easement Acquisition for Storm Pond Improvements. g. TH 101 Corridor Design Study South of Lyman Boulevard to Scott County Line: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County/MnDOT - PW064F4. h. Accept $1,000 Donation to the Chanhassen Recreation Center from TCF Bank. i. 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01: Accept Feasibility Study; Call for Public Hearings. j. Item Deleted ** (2006 Sealcoat Project 06-02: Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications). k. Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition, Project No. 03-08: Accept Public Utilities. l. TH 101 GAP Project 04-06: Approval of Land Purchase Agreement with Lake Susan Apartments. m. Item Deleted ** (West 78th Street Extension Project 04-14: Approve Westwood Church Reimbursement for Construction) n. TH 312/212 Improvement Project Nos. 03-09-3, 04-05, 04-06: Adopt Amended Resolution for TH 312/212 Improvements. o. KENTON & JULIA KELLY, 6539 Grey Fox Curve: Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit to Construct a Dock. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Stonefield, 1601 Lyman Boulevard, Plowshares Development, LLC: a. Public Hearing on Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements b. Request for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A-2 to Single Family Residential, RSF; and c. Request for Subdivision into 30 Lots, 1 Outlot, and Public Right-of-Way with Variances. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Moved to Item 2o. 6. GALPIN CROSSING, Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Highway 5 & Galpin Boulevard, Rich Ragatz: Request for Reconsideration of Concept PUD for a 10-unit Twin Home Project and a 66,000 sq. ft. Office Development. NEW BUSINESS 7. ORCHARD GREEN, 2611 & 2621 Orchard Lane, Peter Knaeble: Request for Subdivision Review for 4 Single Family Lots. 8. BLUFF CREEK TWIN HOMES: Southwest Corner of Lyman Boulevard & Highway 101, Martin Schutrop: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate the property in the 2000 MUSA; Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; and Subdivision with Variances for an 18-unit twin home development, 2 Outlots and Public Right-of-Way. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager DATE: January 5, 2006 RE: 2006 Strategic Plan Issue Rankings Attached to this report are the rankings provided by the City Council for the 2006 Strategic Plan/Key Financial Strategies issues. Issues in each category have been sorted with the highest ranking topic listed first. Traditionally, the City Council has chosen to focus on issues that have a ranking of two or lower. Once staff receives confirmation that these are the items the City Council wishes to focus on, a final Key Financial Strategies plan will be developed. 2006 Strategic Plan Priorities KFS Topic Furlong Labatt Peterson Tjornhom Lundquist Average Public Safety Establish benchmarks for the police contract 2006 1 2 1 2 1 1.40 Create plan to deal with public safety issues as growth continues -ongoing 2004 1 1 2 2 2 1.60 Traffic Management (Pleasantview, Lake Lucy, Powers, 212/312)2005 2 2 3 3 2 2.40 More council interaction in crime prevention/neighborhood watch -ongoing 2003 3 3 3 3 3 3.00 Economic Development Complete McComb retail market study 2006 1 3 1 1 1 1.40 Support the marketplace driven development of industrial land - ongoing 2003 1 2 2 2 1 1.60 Hwy 212 – update on design and land use, vision of corridor - ongoing 2003 2 2 3 1 2 2.00 Begin review of 2010/2015 MUSA and Comp Plan Updates 2005 3 1 2 2 2 2.00 Leverage City property as much as possible - Marketing of land - ongoing 2003 2 2 2 3 4 2.60 Develop town center into a more full-service/inviting central business district 2003 3 4 3 2 3 3.00 Budget/Taxation Improve monthly financial reports 2005 1 3 1 2 1 1.60 Implement ACH (automatic withdrawals) for utility customers 2006 1 2 2 2 1 1.60 Monitor state and county financial situations/legislative platform 2004 2 2 2 1 1 1.60 Evaluate outside consultant use/contract model for other services 2003 3 4 3 3 3 3.20 City Organization Adopt and implement SWMP Plan 2006 1 1 2 2 1 1.40 Develop relationships with outside agencies (state, county, etc.) - ongoing 2003 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Evaluate potential satellite fire station (CIP 2008)2005 2 2 3 2 2 2.20 Public Works facility expansion (CIP 2007-08)2004 2 2 3 3 3 2.60 Evaluate park needs based on comp plan service areas 2005 3 3 3 3 2 2.80 Community-Wide Issues Highway 101 (South of Lyman Blvd.)2006 1 1 2 1 2 1.40 Highway 101 gap project - ongoing 2004 1 1 3 1 1 1.40 Locating a license service center in the city 2005 1 2 2 2 1 1.60 Highway 41 trail and underpass funding options 2006 1 2 2 1 2 1.60 Monitor Highway 41 river crossing study 2004 2 1 3 1 1 1.60 Downtown Park and Ride expansion 2005 2 2 1 3 1 1.80 District 112 secondary school site partnership 2005 1 2 2 2 2 1.80 Educating the public on new growth 2006 2 3 2 2 2 2.20 Rice Marsh Lake Trail loop 2006 2 2 3 2 2 2.20 Allocation of athletic field space 2004 3 1 3 3 2 2.40 Highway 5 upgrade (west of Highway 41)2004 2 3 3 3 2 2.60 Seminary Fen 2004 3 2 4 1 3 2.60 Consider expansion of cultural activities 2006 3 4 3 3 3 3.20 Amphitheater/gathering place 2003 4 4 3 4 3 3.60 Housing/Land Use Review of current housing trends with McComb retail market study 2006 1 3 1 2 1 1.60 Begin 2008 Comprehensive Plan update 2006 1 1 1 3 2 1.60 Review design standards 2006 2 2 1 2 2 1.80 Zoning issues related with higher densities 2003 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Explore creative multifamily housing projects in the downtown area 2005 2 3 3 2 2 2.40 Analyze costs imposed by City to developers 2004 3 3 3 2 3 2.80 Serve as convener of private and non-profit sectors to develop housing strategies 2003 3 4 4 3 2 3.20 Explore tax credits/other financial support programs that support this issue 2003 2 4 4 3 3 3.20 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: Organizational Items The following items require Council action as a part of our first meeting of 2006: a. Official Newspaper: Attached please find letters from the Chanhassen Villager and Lake Shore Weekly News requesting designation as the city’s official newspaper. This office recommends that the Chanhassen Villager be appointed as the city’s official newspaper because it is the only newspaper that meets designation guidelines established by state statute (see attached). b. Acting Mayor: The Council should select one of its members to serve as Acting Mayor. This person will run Council meetings, stand in at ceremonies, and execute official city documents in the absence of the Mayor. c. Fire Chief: The Fire Department elected Gregg Geske to another two-year term as Fire Chief in December of 2005. Staff recommends that the Council reaffirm Mr. Geske’s appointment as Fire Chief. If you have any questions, please contact me. g:\user\karen\org mtg 2006.doc CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 12, 2005 Prior to the regular work session, the City Council held an executive session to discuss the City Manager’s performance review. Mayor Furlong opened the work session meeting at 6:15 p.m.. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Lundquist COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Greg Sticha, and Todd Hoffman 2006 KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES. Todd Gerhardt reviewed the proposed 2006 Key Financial Strategies listed in the staff report. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on staff’s definition of support for District 112’s high school referendum. He stated the school district shouldn’t assume the city’s support and expressed the need for educating the public regarding the numbers and the need for the referendum. Councilman Lundquist stated he would provide an update during council presentations regarding the recent public hearings for the Highway 41 river crossing. Mayor Furlong asked that MnDot come to a future work session to update the council on this item, and suggested adding Highway 101 south of Lyman Boulevard into the study. Mayor Furlong asked about the timing of the Highway 212/312 landscaping work. Regarding the Rice Marsh Lake trail loop, Mayor Furlong asked about opportunities of cost sharing with Eden Prairie. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification of the fees associated with ACH and online payments. Councilman Lundquist suggested the city add to their list of Key Financial Strategies starting a legislative platform prior to the beginning of the legislative session. Councilman Peterson asked staff to look at ways of getting more creative designs from developers. Mayor Furlong suggested the need for improving the planning process with existing neighborhoods. Councilman Lundquist asked staff to look at the mix of residential vs. industrial-commercial in the city. Kate Aanenson explained the items that will be addressed by the McComb Retail Market Analysis. Mayor Furlong stated the citizen survey results showed the city is doing things well and outlined the few things that need to be addressed in 2006. He asked staff to work on improving what is working well. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on why the restaurant business wasn’t expanding faster in the city. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 6:55 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2005 Acting Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Peterson, Councilman Lundquist and Councilwoman Tjornhom. Mayor Furlong arrived late for the meeting. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, and Kelley Janes PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Jerry McDonald Planning Commission Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Judd Fenlon 665 Woodridge Drive, Mendota Heights PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilman Peterson noted that Mayor Furlong was absent from the meeting for a short time. He then read a proclamation recognizing Herb Bloomberg and his accomplishments in the city of Chanhassen. Councilman Peterson directed staff to come up with ideas for a more lasting impact than a proclamation to honor Mr. Bloomberg’s contributions to the city. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom 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 28, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 28, 2005 -City Council Summary Minutes dated December 5, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 15, 2005 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 22, 2005 b. TH 212: Approve Extending Work Hours, Project 03-09. c. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Land Purchase Agreement for Storm Pond Improvement. City Council Summary – December 12, 2005 2 e. Resolution#2005-98: Infiltration/Inflow Improvements: Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications, PW 254B. f. Lake Susan Park Playground: Approval of Quote for Concrete Border. g. Pay Compensation Plan: Approval of Amendments. h. Council Travel Policy: Approval of Policy. i. Resolution#2005-99: 1998A Park GO Bonds: Approval of Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Debt Levy by $285,000. j. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 1, Definitions-Signs. k. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 7, Section 7-22, Grading & Erosion Control. l. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 13, Noise-Construction Hours. n. Resolution#2005-100: Well Nos. 10 & 11 Improvements: Award Contract, Project No. 04-08A. o. Resolution#2005-101: Settlers West: Accept Street & Utilities, Project No. 04-13. p. Resolution#2005-102: Cimmaron: Accept Streets & Utilities, Project No. 04-10. q. Empak Addition: Release of Development Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. D. EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT: Councilman Lundquist thanked staff for re-looking at the numbers for the project when bids came in higher than budgeted. Resolution#2005-103: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve Change Order No. 1, Project 04-08 for the East Water Treatment Plant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT: CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 4, FEES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked how the City of Chanhassen’s fees compared relation to other cities. City Council Summary – December 12, 2005 3 Councilman Peterson opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After discussion the following motion was made. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the City Code amendment amending Chapter 4, Fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. GALPIN CROSSING, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, APPLICANTS EPIC DEVELOPMENT & JOHN PRYZMUS, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 10 UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT AND A 66,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Rich Ragatz Eden Prairie Lance Erickson 7735 Vasserman Trail Kevin McShane 180 South Shore Court Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on timing for the project and the number of votes needed to pass the motion. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the timing for completion of the retail market study. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on the pedestrian circulation, square footage of the proposed buildings, and architectural details. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table this item to the end of the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist provided an update on the Highway 41 river crossing public hearing. Councilman Peterson provided an update on Southwest Metro Transit. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt noted the letter in the correspondence packet regarding third quarter numbers for the prosecution contract. RETAIL MARKET STUDY: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF STUDY. Public Present: Name Address Bill Traxler Victoria Linda Walton Chanhassen City Council Summary – December 12, 2005 4 Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior Mark A. Sass 6275 Hummingbird Road, Excelsior Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Bill Gorton with McComb Group provided background information on the company and outlined their market analysis proposal. Bill Traxler, the 2006 Chair of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce expressed the Chamber’s support for this study. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the attached contract for the Market Analysis Study to be completed by the McComb Group, Ltd, amended to include a pay as you go clause and the 4 month time line, using Entertainment TIF District as the funding source. The City Council also accepts the $5,000 contribution from the Chamber of Commerce. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. 2006 BUDGET: CONSIDER ADOPTION AND LEVY CERTIFICATION TO THE CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR. Greg Sticha presented the staff report and a power point presentation outlining the 2006 budget, 2006-2010 CIP and 2006 tax levy. The Mayor and City Council members thanked city staff for their work on the budget. Todd Gerhardt thanked his staff for their work in the process. Resolution#2005-104: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt the 2006 budget and levy certification to the Carver County Auditor, and Resolution#2005-105: to adopt the 2006-2010 CIP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONTINUATION OF THE GALPIN CROSSING APPLICATION. The City Council discussed the item and then voted on the following motion Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the concept planned unit development for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard, subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. City Council Summary – December 12, 2005 5 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. City Council Summary – December 12, 2005 6 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A § Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. § Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. § Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. § Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B § No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. § Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. § Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. § Meet parking lot landscape requirements. § Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. § Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. City Council Summary – December 12, 2005 7 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32. A traffic study be completed for the proposed development.” 33. The applicant shall not submit for preliminary review until the Retail Market Study has been completed by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CITY MANAGER’S PERFORMANCE REVIEW: ANNOUNCE RESULTS. Mayor Furlong announced the results of the City Manager’s performance review and council’s recommendations. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve increasing the City Manager’s total compensation in 2006 by 6% above that which he received in 2005 and changing his compensation to a salary only base plan consistent with other municipalities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong distributed a news release from the office of Governor Tim Pawlenty regarding his appointment to the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2005 Acting Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Peterson, Councilman Lundquist and Councilwoman Tjornhom. Mayor Furlong arrived late for the meeting. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, and Kelley Janes PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Jerry McDonald Planning Commission Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Judd Fenlon 665 Woodridge Drive, Mendota Heights PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Councilman Peterson: The Mayor has temporarily stepped away. Another conflict. Will be back hopefully within a half hour or so, so we’ll try to muddle through this ourselves. To that end, the public announcements section I would like to read to you, if I may, a proclamation that recognizes the passing of Herb Bloomberg, who you all probably know and had read in the paper that he passed away recently and clearly was an individual of great stature within the community and to that end this council would like to consider a proclamation and that is as follows. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING HERB BLOOMBERG. Councilman Peterson: Whereas, Herb Bloomberg honorably served the City of Chanhassen as a chair of the Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority from 1974 to 1978; and Whereas, Mr. Bloomberg was instrumental in the development of Chanhassen starting businesses in the area of lumber yard, furniture sales, and hotels, as well as numerous residential developments; and Whereas, arguably the most recognizable landmark in the city of Chanhassen, the Chanhassen Dinner Theater is a direct result of Mr. Bloomberg’s time, talent and vision; and Whereas, the Chanhassen Dinner Theater annually brings over 250,000 visitors to Chanhassen and employs over 300 people; and Whereas, the City of Chanhassen would be very different today if not for the numerous contributions of Herb Bloomberg; and Whereas, the City of Chanhassen was sadden to learn of Mr. Bloomberg’s death on December 4, 2005 but will always remember him as a wonderful man and a true community legend. Now therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota that Herb Bloomberg be remembered and honored for his contributions to the city of Chanhassen and that the thoughts and the prayers City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 2 of this City Council be with his wife and his family. With that I would make a motion that we approve this proclamation. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the proclamation recognizing Herb Bloomberg. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Gerhardt, I think you have some additional comments you might add. Some personal thoughts. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I’ve worked with Herb Bloomberg probably for the last 20 years. He’s probably developed over 100 single family homes, townhomes throughout the community, South Shore, up by Pleasant View. He was the master redeveloper for a lot of projects in our downtown redevelopment. Probably one of his projects that I think he liked the most was the Country Suites. That was a joint project with himself and his wife in doing the decorating and design of the Country Suites. Master redeveloper of Market Square. The Market Street Station development that just recently was completed. Had a part in the cinema. Frontier development. Office retail center next to the Dinner Theater, so Herb has had a hand in a lot of redevelopment and new development in the downtown in the past 20 years so. I know he took a lot of pride in making downtown Chanhassen special and I think you can see it wherever you go. Councilman Peterson: Thank you. I think in addition to that I think we’d like this council to direct staff to find some other more lasting impact than a proclamation to perhaps honor his contributions to the city too so if you could put that on the agenda some time in the future. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, staff will put some options together for council based on the memorial policy that we have and see what’s most fitting. Councilman Peterson: Okay, good. Thank you. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom 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 28, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 28, 2005 -City Council Summary Minutes dated December 5, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 15, 2005 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 22, 2005 City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 3 b. TH 212: Approve Extending Work Hours, Project 03-09. c. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Land Purchase Agreement for Storm Pond Improvement. e. Resolution#2005-98: Infiltration/Inflow Improvements: Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications, PW 254B. f. Lake Susan Park Playground: Approval of Quote for Concrete Border. g. Pay Compensation Plan: Approval of Amendments. h. Council Travel Policy: Approval of Policy. i. Resolution#2005-99: 1998A Park GO Bonds: Approval of Resolution Authorizing Reduction of Debt Levy by $285,000. j. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 1, Definitions-Signs. k. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 7, Section 7-22, Grading & Erosion Control. l. City Code Amendment: Approval of Amendment to Chapter 13, Noise-Construction Hours. n. Resolution#2005-100: Well Nos. 10 & 11 Improvements: Award Contract, Project No. 04-08A. o. Resolution#2005-101: Settlers West: Accept Street & Utilities, Project No. 04-13. p. Resolution#2005-102: Cimmaron: Accept Streets & Utilities, Project No. 04-10. q. Empak Addition: Release of Development Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. D. EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT: Councilman Lundquist: Discussion on this topic really is centering around, want to give some kudo’s to staff, Todd, Paul. As we’ve been going through this water treatment process, we’ll call it for the last year or so, things don’t always come out the way you planned and as this project has proceeded, the initials came in a little, bids came in a little higher than budget so I think I was a fairly vocal critic of that and pushing for some concessions there. Some deeper dives into that and wanted to, as this item comes up, have some discussion and talk about the fact that, and recognize the fact that staff has gone back and looked at some of the items that were, I’ll call them want’s rather than need’s. Some of the ornamental things and some of those things to try to City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 4 limit those dollars, which after all are taxpayers dollars so. I think that albeit that the dollar amount is not massive in the grand scheme of the project, that the concept that staff has gone back and looked at those things and has taken those things out is again demonstration Todd for you and your staff that you can step outside of what some people might call a normal government practice to go back and look at some of those things rather than just go back and ask for more money. So with that I would say we’re on the right track there and let’s keep looking for more opportunities as we go and would move for approval of item 1(d) after that discussion. Councilman Peterson: Any other comments? It’s been moved. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman Peterson: Any further discussion? Resolution#2005-103: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve Change Order No. 1, Project 04-08 for the East Water Treatment Plant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT: CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 4, FEES. Kate Aanenson: As the city staff does annually, we review the fees in light of the change in inflation and construction index. Also evaluating the park and trail fees based on land cost. Some of these prices you were shared with by the Ehlers group who specifically looked at the storm water and the utility study at one of your most recent work sessions, so attached for your recommendation, the staff’s proposed recommended fee adjustment for the year 2006. All the department heads are here and will be able to answer questions specifically on what’s parochial to them. So with that we are recommending the ordinance amending Chapter 4 for the fees as stated in the staff report. Councilman Peterson: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, Brian’s looking at that too. I just saw it when I came in but how are our fees…other cities? Kate Aanenson: If you look at for example, I’ll let the Park and Rec Director talk about the park fees but if you remember when Jessica Cook was here to talk specifically about the storm water fees. We were not the highest and we’re not the lowest so we felt good about that. I’ll let Todd comment on the park and trail. Todd Hoffman: Thanks Kate. You have one copy or a copy of one survey which was recently been completed and I think if you go to the back they’ll give you an average. So our park in our park charges are higher than many in the outstate and in the metropolitan area as well. It’s tied to land cost. This fee is based off of a land cost of $125,000 per acre and our land costs, raw City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 5 land costs are actually much higher than that. They average from 125 to 225 to 250. So what we’re trying to equate this to is when we go out there and acquire an acre of property, we want the value of what we’re taking equivalent to our fees that we’re charging. So using $125,000 per acre in raw land cost equals out to a $5,800 per dwelling single family cost. Some other costs that we have, Eden Prairie next year will be at $5,000 for a single compared to 58. They’re going to be at 41 for a multi compared to our 38 so little bit behind. Lakeville, $4,032 for a single versus our 58. Plymouth, $4,000 and then Shakopee $5,340. So we are at the top end of those park charges that…past couple of weeks. Todd Gerhardt: When we, when staff sits down and looks at, look at these numbers, we try to get to a realistic value of what land prices are going for and I think we’re below that. However, you know with the formula that we use, we need to be at this level to buy parkland in southerly Chanhassen. We also need to build the trails that go along to connect those parks, so these are the numbers that we’re out there competing to try to buy land from developers. I know that turns around and increases the cost back to the homeowners that are going to build new homes here, but as we moved to this community we paid that price for what land was going for so we’re just trying to stay up with the price of land in town is why we’re recommending these fees. Councilman Peterson: Well I think it’s also important to note too that what we’re accomplishing by doing this is, is staying off potential referendums down the road which some of the other cities that were mentioned earlier Todd have their fees raised and they’re also doing referendums, so I think by accomplishing what these relatively modest fee increases are, is to certainly stay that for some period of time, which I think is commendable for the way in which we’re doing it. Todd Hoffman: It’s important to remember it’s not just for acquisition but development of these parks. Councilman Peterson: Any other questions of staff? I’d like to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to address this issue, please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to council. Any thoughts? Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Peterson, thoughts I think expressed, staff’s I believe correct talking about, this is land costs. $125,000 an acre. That’s probably, I think if you could walk in and get some parcels of land for $125,000 an acre, you’d have a line at the door a mile long trying to get in so probably conservative number. It is important for us to use the development that drives the requirements of these parks to pay for those new parks. I guess that’s a price of doing business. I would however differ with your comment that, on the reasonably modest. I think you know, this is one of the unfortunate pieces where you’re in a growing, thriving community when land is skyrocketing is an increase from $4,000 a home to $1,800 a home is a pretty steep jump. You’re talking about 40, more than 40% increase there. Which is substantial. But you know, I don’t know what’s our other choice is to, you know land prices are going up 10 or 12, 15% a year so I guess I’m caught a little bit. It’s hard for me because they are going to be passed on directly to the homeowners and other things. But I guess that would be again the price of doing business, but it’s one that I struggle with a little bit to, as we look at other, this doesn’t really get us toward housing affordability and things like that, but again it’s a service and amenity that people in City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 6 Chanhassen value. They see that on our surveys year after year, time after time. Any time you ask them what they like about Chanhassen, parks if not the number one, definitely in the top 3. So I guess with hesitation I can support it, but recognize that that’s, that those are pretty steep. But again market driven I guess by land so I can understand why they’re at where they’re at. Todd Gerhardt: Council, staff had the same thoughts. We were proposing to try to come in at closer to $150,000 but we thought that was too much to bite from where we were at before, and so we scaled that back. We had to bump it up. We were going into a deficit. We weren’t planning properly for our park acquisition down the line by not having a higher price per lot for these park and trail dedication fees. So we were digging ourselves in a hole by reducing it down even further we’re still not going to be able to accomplish some of the things that we need to do in the 2005 and 10 areas. So we felt that the 125 seemed to be some good middle ground to start with and re-look at it next year or the year after. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I think also in our work session we discussion the fact that we’re not living year to year. We’re trying to plan for 8 years down the road, or down the road and I think this is probably an example of that because I would much rather be raising fees than having to have a referendum for parks and raising fees like some cities are doing and so…as well for some developers and homeowners I think down the road. Councilman Lundquist: Future homeowners. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Future homeowners hopefully. This is probably the best way to go. Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you. My thoughts don’t differ substantially. I think it’s modest probably is inappropriate relating to the percentage increase but I think that it’s based upon staff’s comments and where we are today and where we want to be tomorrow, it’s a reasonable increase and appropriate for accomplishing our respective goal so. With that, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: I would move approval of item 2 as published in the packet. The adoption of fee schedule published. Councilman Peterson: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman Peterson: It’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the City Code amendment amending Chapter 4, Fees. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson: There is no unfinished business. We move onto new business. What I’d like to offer is I’d like to move item number 4 with the Mayor still being absent. I’d like him to City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 7 participate in the budget process if we can. To that end, staff would you present the Galpin Crossing proposal this evening. GALPIN CROSSING, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, APPLICANTS EPIC DEVELOPMENT & JOHN PRYZMUS, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 10 UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT AND A 66,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Rich Ragatz Eden Prairie Lance Erickson 7735 Vasserman Trail Kevin McShane 180 South Shore Court Kate Aanenson: This is the subject site located on the corner of Galpin and Highway 5. West 78th bisects the property. It’s currently zoned A2 and it’s guided for low density residential. Most recently it had the golf course on it before West 78th, or driving range, excuse me. And then the miniature golf currently vacant. This is where the parking lot fits currently. Everything else has been removed from the site. There is a creek that runs along the north side of the subject property and on the north side they’re proposing residential and the south side is the request for the office industrial. When this first appeared before the staff, to kind of talk about what the intended use was, the applicant wanted to do all retail on the site. If we go back to the Highway 5 corridor study, which is referenced in the document, the staff report excuse me, there was a concern at that time to have strip commercial and it’s going to kind of segway into the discussion we’re going to have later tonight to talk about the retail market analysis, but there was some concern about that. If you look at the 60,000 square feet, there’s some comparable big uses down here. Byerly’s. That’s quite a significant amount of commercial in how it’s being laid out so the direction from the staff was that we would support office. There’s complimentary use there based on that, and looking at the multi-family. There’s a couple different ways to look at the multi-family or the development of this site. One of the things we talked about was the overlay district which we did on the commercial on this side is we actually left all this as open space. Was an opportunity to kind of maximize it with the PUD, doing the density transfer and then leaving the other side open in ponding. And one of the conditions we did have in there was the suitability of development on that south side, and again this is a concept PUD and as stated in the staff report, approval of the concept does not obligate the city to approve any final plans. Or to rezone the property for the PUD, but rather we were just trying to give a general framework so in here we’ve indicated some direction that we would like the applicant to pursue and one of the things that we’re kind of looking at too is we’re conducting, make a policy adoption or implementation of the market study to see how that would relay into this. But we did put some uses in there that we thought would work. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on this item back on November 15th. They did recommend approval 6-0 for the PUD concept as outlined here for you tonight. So with that, we are recommending approval with some of those issues outlined in the staff report which kind of highlighted. One of the major ones here was the City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 8 traffic study…regarding the access point. There were certainly for retail that would probably be more desirable. We did support a bank. I know there’s a lot of banks looking at a bank to go into that corner if it was incorporated in office buildings. Very similar to what we did on the Market Street Station project. They incorporated a bank into that building and they have some offices up there too. Similarly done that over on Villages on the Pond where they incorporated the larger bank with offices. We think that works but the one concern there was the right-in/ right-out and looking at that so we’ve asked for a traffic study on that access point. Maybe encouraging U-turns and we’re just a little concerned about that, so with that again it’s concept. Giving some direction to come back. Office use only except for the possibility of incorporation of a banking or that type of similar retail. Financial institution. So with that, I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Councilman Peterson: Any questions of staff? Councilman Lundquist: We should develop a ratio like our 1 acre of park per 75 people for our banks. We’ve got to be double digits, as we’ve got one in the back there. Kate your, I remember reading through the staff report here you talked about you not necessarily thrilled with the plan as laid out and kind of broken up into chunks you’d like to see it bigger and didn’t really reflect that in the conditions. That’s just one of those things you’re going to work with them as, I mean this is a year or two or so out do you anticipate or? Kate Aanenson: Well I think, depending how fast the applicant wants to proceed with that. Obviously before it comes back, then we put, typically when we do a PUD we put that list of uses that we permitted it in the district. First of all we want to get a read from the Planning Commission and the council as to how supportive you are of changing the zoning district, and then kind of give some specific concerns we have. As you look at the south side there isn’t much place for ponding, and again there’s two ways to reconcile that. You could, under the PUD, compress all that and then use the other side of the street. Or we felt this really lends itself to the retail…and we’d like to see a little bit bigger building footprint and give them more flexibility. I think you’ve got a smaller office building like that. We’ve got that kind of rounding, and try to look at that nitch. What don’t we have. What do we think is a little bit more in the market place. And I guess that kind of parlays in one of the conditions that we did recommend and we look at that with our marketing study to say you know, does that make some sense. I know that was a big discussion we had on the Lifetime side, trying to break up that little pieces and we held our ground to keep a bigger piece and it was a win because we ended up with Lifetime so trying to anticipate some of that. So that’s why we put in a condition that we kind of track that. Also that market study and see how that parlays out. Councilman Lundquist: That section of Vasserman right there that would back up to that. Are those townhouses right there or are they single families? Kate Aanenson: Those are single family. Councilman Lundquist: To the west. Todd Gerhardt: Those are twin homes. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 9 Kate Aanenson: Okay, so they’d be compatible. I’m sorry. These are a little bit different as far as these wouldn’t be individual lots because they’d be a PUD. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Kate Aanenson: If it was an R-4. Councilman Lundquist: Looking at more for a usage of transition. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and the neighbors, there was some comments at the Planning Commission regarding the transitional use, which is another concern that, you know from the lights and if it’s a restaurant, particularly different hours as you would compared to an office. Maybe later hours. I know those were some of the concerns that we had with that building footprint spread out like that, how do you mitigate that? And that was the second page of the report was a letter that was sent by, and I think that kind of summarizes a lot of the concern that the neighbors have. Councilman Lundquist: And my last question, maybe Todd or Roger, as reading through this. Approval 4/5ths. Is that 4/5th of the council or is that a ratio that you’re looking for? Kate Aanenson: That’s a good question which I got a legal interpretation on. Typically it does say PUD for rezoning but I’ll let Roger answer the question. Roger Knutson: We’re processing an amendment, to clarify this I believe. Kate Aanenson: It is a concept PUD, and because there is some residential, we determined that the 2/3 council present would address it. Roger Knutson: The short answer is, although this is concept approval and by statute you wouldn’t have to have a simple majority, by your ordinance you do require as part of the rezoning process. And so you need 4 affirmative votes to pass. Councilman Lundquist: 4 affirmative or 2/3 of your quorum present? Roger Knutson: 4 affirmative votes. Todd Gerhardt: One of the options that you could do is wait for Mayor Furlong to come back. Go through your discussion on this item. Hold this item off until you have a 4 member board here. You can go ahead and approve it with the 3 members. However you are doing that in violation of your current ordinance and then you have some risk down the line if somebody would want to contest your approval of it. Kate Aanenson: Just a further note on that. This is a strange thing we have in our code which we are, the Planning Commission at their most recent modified that, has taken that out. It’s kind of conflicts with most other city processes so, at your next City Council meeting that language will be actually struck from the ordinance. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 10 Roger Knutson: Another option, and I don’t want to burden you with options. Taking this matter to the next meeting, in case the mayor doesn’t make it back. Councilman Peterson: Well let’s continue on with questions of staff and I think the mayor’s up to speed on the projects. I don’t think he needs to necessarily dwell on it so let’s keep it moving and then we can decide what to do later. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, with this rezoning, kind of what you had discussion about finding more office industrial. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. This is one of the sites. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And on retail, everyone now that is wanting to develop something that we want them to wait for the retail market study? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Yep, we’re working with a couple other people that are definitely in the holding pattern. Yeah, yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that should be done in April. March or April? Kate Aanenson: That’s what we’re recommending is that we have a 4 month, as part of the contract, a 4 month completion date. Councilman Peterson: Any questions? Kate, to go back to the drawing, could you kind of walk me through the, you know obviously we’re always focused as well as the Planning Commission on sidewalks and trails and how to get pedestrian traffic through that and across the street, which they obviously would be going to. My drawings on the PC are just so hard to see. Could you kind of walk us through. Kate Aanenson: They’re not much better on this one, sure. Actually there is a trail on West 78th, that’s on the north side. So one of the recommendations that would be in here that there be a trail along the south side, and then interconnection as you just indicated for buildings. Again they’re kind of spread out there. So the interconnection and also sidewalks is currently is shown on this side to get, and then make this connection across if you wanted to go between the uses. So really the only missing link would be between the buildings and then specifically along West 78th. Councilman Peterson: What’s the engineering’s perspective on possible stop light at the intersection? Is that at all planned in the future, do we know? Paul Oehme: Thank you council member. At that intersection there, I did have a conversation with the County on that a while ago and to date there is no warrants for a signal at that intersection. And in the future it’s still out there a ways in terms of the traffic counts now out there is significant accidents or other issues associated with that intersection that might put into a warrant category but at this time I don’t see a signal going in there anytime soon. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 11 Councilman Peterson: Okay. Kate, what’s the footprint of some of the smaller buildings down towards Highway 5? Kate Aanenson: 3,000. So I mean those could be multi-tenant too. Make it you know, again this is really laid out in kind of a retail format so we expect to see something a little bit different. We were just kind of doing some comparisons of some other buildings in town. If you looked at Eckankar is the one new building they have. That’s 60,000 square feet, which is approximately what this would be so that could be one building. If you looked at Mark Undestad’s office parks, the Stone Creek Office Park, that’s about 70,000 square feet. That was our first condo type that we’ve done so it just give you some comparisons. I mentioned Byerly’s was 60,000 so you’re kind of, there is a significant amount of square footage available there. Councilman Peterson: Okay. And then you haven’t seen any of the architectural design on the residentials yet? Kate Aanenson: No, this is just preliminary. Again the goal is just to really get a read on the direction and then if the intent is to go with the industrial, we look at that study, how that weaves into this. Then we’d come back with some specific lists. The design standards and then the permitted uses and the intent of the district to actually develop that ordinance. And the district standards. Councilman Peterson: We see residentials requests for that property on the north side before and part of what some of the challenge was is that it was pushing pretty close to the road on a pretty high traffic road. That it was kind of oriented towards. Kate Aanenson: On this piece? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. I guess as a staff we felt that we didn’t see the retail there but we certainly saw some, we’ve had requests for the office, maybe a larger building and multi-tenant, we anticipated that. We’ve had requests for churches, some of those kind of things that would be a single user. Some of those rim pieces that would want something of that scale, so that’s kind of what we anticipated in looking at that. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Okay. Alright, any other questions of staff? I think what I’d like to do then is to table this, recommend tabling it until we get another member of council here and discuss that further at that point in time. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table at this point to the end of the meeting. Councilman Peterson: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 12 Councilman Peterson: It’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table this item to the end of the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson: Well let’s try to figure out what we can talk about with the mayor not here. Why don’t we go to council presentations. Councilman Lundquist, I believe you have one. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Yep I do. Last week there was a presentation done by MnDot at the Carver County government center regarding the proposed Highway 41 bridge crossing or the new Highway 41 bridge crossing with several of the alternatives. MnDot did a mailing, direct mail to all of the households in that corridor that are affected in Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver and several of the surrounding townships and things and then also in Scott County, Shakopee and some of those. Kate was there. The Mayor and I both attended as well. I think a good turnout when I was there. Probably in excess of 150 people there, which I think is good that that comes out and as this thing progresses along we’ll keep a keen eye and interest on what’s happening with all of those different options. I don’t think there’s anyone that wouldn’t acknowledge that sometime in the future we’re going to need another way to get across the river here, other than 41 and 101. Especially when the water gets high in the spring potentially and as this area continues to grow, it’s not going to be fun to drive to Belle Plaine or to 35W to, or 169 to get across the river, so I think everybody acknowledges that but there’s a lot of, as Lisa Freise put it, there’s something to hate about every one of those options. So we’ll continue to look at that. We’ve got to look at some things coming down. Work session meetings with MnDot through that but it will be important that our residents and that keep, they can talk to staff members. I’m the council liaison to that group so they can feel free to contact me as well but as we proceed through about this time next year MnDot hopes to have a corridor identified so, you’ve got about 10-11 months to sort of work through the big issues here but I think the way MnDot did that was good. Great participation on that. Good information they handed out. It will be an interesting process to go through but for those people that live along that or are affected by that or who care about that, now’s the time to get your comments and feedback in to staff or myself. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, if they just call the general number here at City Hall and ask for Paul Oehme or myself, we can get them information on the different alternatives that are out there. Councilman Lundquist: They’re also, it’s also out on MnDot’s web site. You can see that as well with maps and all that good stuff is out there. Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We want to hear their comments and make sure we’re going in the right direction on which alternative we believe is the right one. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 13 Councilman Peterson: Anything else? Brief update on Southwest Metro Transit. As you would assume, ridership is still continuing to trend upward. Over and above the normal trends. I think gas prices have still caused more people to stay off the road and ride the buses so we are at capacity essentially in almost all of our routes. As far as the long distance routes and update on Highway 101 and Lyman facility. We are entertaining, in the midst of entertaining proposals from developers to do both the commercial development and the residential and we are sorting through those and hope we make a decision within the next 30 days or so. We are still trying to find a resolution to expanding our space here in the Market Street Station area. We’re being challenged by, just trying to find the right timing to make that happen. As you’re aware we have an easement for 160 spots there. We’re negotiating with the owner as we speak and we may have to have other alternatives as we’re having a difficult time just agreeing on timing and some of the related issues to that so we’re definitely in need of more space down there. We’re full every day and again that’s a testament to people getting off the road, which is always a good thing so. To that end things are going well at Southwest Metro Transit. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: One item in the correspondence packet. You’ve got statistics up through the third quarter for our prosecution contract. It’s not included in the close cases are the misdemeanors so if you’re trying to tie numbers back from open cases to closed cases, you’re not going to balance and I did talk with Elliott today and he has told me of the closed cases that his staff has prosecuted, you’ve got probably 3 to 4 that we weren’t successful with over the last 3 quarters, so you know it’s about 99%, so you’re doing a pretty good job Roger. And so I think we’re on the right track there and things are working out. Doing a good job. Councilman Peterson: Good. Why don’t we move on to the staff report. Item number 5. RETAIL MARKET STUDY: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF STUDY. Public Present: Name Address Bill Traxler Victoria Linda Walton Chanhassen Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road, Excelsior Mark A. Sass 6275 Hummingbird Road, Excelsior Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Kate Aanenson: Thank you. At your work session on November 28th the staff presented a proposal to you from the McComb Group that we wanted to undertake and really it’s a segway into the comprehensive plan process to look at the future needs of the city, and specifically industrial and commercial. This certainly came to the forefront as we moved through the 2005 issue and as the implementation of development of 212 that we need to be doing analysis and re- examining the assumptions that were made, and also to look at do we have the appropriate mix of land use down there and the absorptions so with that we met with the McCombs Group and City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 14 got a proposal. In working on this proposal we also met with the Chamber who showed up at your work session too and lent it’s support in the amount of $5,000. You also directed the staff to look at where the funding would come from so that’s proposed to come from the entertainment TIF district, which is also on for your meeting later this evening. Also I wanted to reaffirm to you that the contract, this proposed contract will be reviewed by the City Attorney. It is intended to be pay as you go, which is how we handle our other contracts with consultants and that also the intent is to be a 4 month contract so that will be put into the conditions. So with that I really, I don’t want to spend too much of Mr. Gorton, Bill Gorton’s thunder here and kind of go through, he’s done this in other cities. I’ve explained a little bit of that. I know the Chamber is here and they want to give some comments so I’ll just let him kind of go through the proposal and if you have other questions for me, I’d be happy to answer those. So with that I’ll turn it over to Bill. Bill Gorton: Good evening. I’m Bill Gorton. I’m Executive Associate with McComb Group. Kate did a great job of summarizing how we got to where we got. It appears that the City of Chanhassen has got some challenges facing it. Some questions that they need help answering and hopefully we can provide some insight to help you get some good direction. McComb Group has been around for about 31 years. We are a diverse real estate and retail consulting group and we offer a variety of consulting and analytic services including market and consumer research, financial feasibility, economic impact assessments, design assistance and development consulting. We do it for a wide variety of products, shopping centers, office buildings, business and industrial parks, apartments, senior housing, mixed use developments. We also have a wide range of clients that include some of the largest institutional investors and development companies, small development organizations, and a number of state and local governments. In many cases municipalities rely on us to help determine the amount of retail space that can be supported within the community based upon the pace of residential development and what the real full build-out retail potential is. We take into consideration the geography of the community and the relationship of the community with existing and potential commercial areas that surround and try to help evaluate what the real market potential is and what that in land use requirement would be based upon what that demand is. And that’s what the proposal that you have before you is intended to do. It outlines in the objective section what we hope to, the kind of information that we hope to provide you. And in the second section that outlines the task, outlines the work program. Relates how we go about it. In general what we’re proposing to do is help estimate the future residential development for the next 20 years and based on that estimate what the demand potential is for commercial and office and services uses. We would evaluate the existing competition in Chanhassen and surrounding areas and attempt to evaluate where likely competition will develop as well. We would be estimating a trade area for Chanhassen and I can pretty much suggest that it will extend well beyond the boundaries of Chanhassen already. We already know that you will draw well beyond your current boundaries. Those communities, many of them west of here that are continuing to grow and expand don’t have retail businesses there and they all come here and they’re going to continue to grow and expand and that in part I’m guessing is accountable for some of the inquiries that you’ve had recently. Additional businesses that would like to find themselves developing in Chanhassen and in areas that you thought may have already been fully mature, yet more people want to come. Why? That’s what we hope to answer. We would provide a market driven estimate of residential development in Chanhassen. Identify the types of housing that we think are suitable. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 15 Try to determine the long term demand and space absorption for business office park uses. With all of that we can then quantify and give you an idea of how many acres in each of the various categories you might need and where they would most appropriately be located, at least in our opinion and what it really serves as is a building block for your planning process. It’s the get go. It’s the start. For that we get together with your space planners and start allocating where it goes and how you’re going to fit it in with your road map works and how you’re going to deal with all that traffic demand and all those other wonderful things. And this really serves as that starting point so that you can understand what the scope of the future is for Chanhassen. How we get there, and that’s outlined in the work program. We utilize our extensive experience in evaluating the area. Any specific development sites that you already have under consideration we will potentially identify others that we see as possibilities. I’ve already mentioned evaluating the competitive shopping areas. Included we have business interviews listed and some customer survey, and that’s really a part I think that the Chamber folks are very interested in. We try to utilize existing businesses to provide some additional data. It really helps better define what the relative strength of the Chanhassen area is for retail. We work with existing businesses to help get an idea from them as to what they believe their current trade area is. How far they draw customers from. The dynamics of the market. The pluses and minuses of doing business in Chanhassen. They all have opinions and most independent business people are not bashful about sharing those opinions if you give them an opportunity to express it, and we try to take advantage of that. The customer survey aspect of it, we ask the businesses to participate with a very simple, straight forward survey of their customers that identifies where they come from. Why they, in general terms, shop at a particular store. We do an analysis of those various studies to help again get a better feel for the market, the dynamics of the market. How strong is it? Where there might be opportunities for improvement. Where there might be areas of over saturation, and it really starts as a good fundamental base for understanding the overall area. Then all the number crunching starts. With that we’re able to better assess what the retail trade area is. The commercial industrial trade area for the Chanhassen area and do the number crunching. Identify what the residential growth will be. Calculate what the overall retail demand for the area will be and make an assessment of what the market potential is for the Chanhassen area. And translate that then into what kind of opportunities might exist for new businesses. Opportunities for expansion for existing businesses. Not by specific businesses but by business categories. We aren’t going to say that you need another Best Buy here. We’ll talk in terms of an electronics, retail electronics store. Who might that be? Well, Best Buy seems like a good one but there might be others. When we get all done, what you end up with is a summary report with lots of graphics and illustrations that help quantify and highlight the main findings of our study. We’ve done this in a number of places and one of the things Kate suggested I might relay, a couple examples. The City of Woodbury has been, had been growing significantly and I think everybody’s aware of some of the latest retail commercial development that’s gone out in Woodbury. I think most folks have heard of Arbor Lakes up in the Maple Grove area and Woodbury this fall just had their Woodbury Lakes open up, which is their version of Arbor Lakes. The City was faced with a real challenge. They were getting approached from lots of retail establishments that wanted to build in their community and they were running out of commercial development land. Their 20 year plan had estimated X and that X amount was almost gone. They had allocated a significant amount of land to industrial development and almost none of that had been developed. They didn’t quite understand the shift in dynamics and they were very concerned about their future. Should we take some of this industrial land and flip City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 16 it into commercial? Should we take residential and flip it into commercial? Should we just stop commercial because we’re already saturated? How long is this going to last? Well we came in and did a market assessment of Woodbury to help them answer some of the questions and identify some of the reasons why things happened the way that they happened. The end result of that was they re-evaluated their land use plan for the next 20 years and they did take some of the industrial land and flip it into commercial. They had a better understanding of what that long term commercial development demand was going to be, and that then set them into the next challenge and that was dealing with some of the traffic issues that would come from all of that. And that’s kind of where they are today is they’re still wrestling with some of the traffic issues related to that residential and commercial demand. Another example on maybe an earlier in it’s maturity, we just finished a study for Cambridge. Maybe not on the same scale as Woodbury or Chanhassen but City of Cambridge has been experiencing some significant residential growth over the last few years and as an outgrowth of that residential growth, all of a sudden they had some major retail commercial development. Some big boxes. Started with a large County Market grocery store. Then they added a Target store and a Wal-Mart super center and a Menards Home Improvement center and they’re continuing to get on a regular basis more and more requests from additional commercial development. The end result is that they’re getting lots of new development out on the east side of Cambridge and there is some concern because it’s taking away, or they’re concerned about the impact it’s having on their downtown central business district area. How long is it going to continue? What kind of long term impact will it have on the central business district area, which by itself has been struggling for a while and has some of it’s own issues to deal with. Perhaps some of the similarities to Chanhassen, and the fact that you have a fairly well established downtown area here, what would be the impact of the new Highway 212? What new commercial developments might happen in and around Chanhassen that would somehow be competitive with your current downtown area? Short term and long term and those are the kinds of things that we can potentially provide some insight into. Like we did in Cambridge, and in Cambridge we concentrated in part on their central business district area in identifying it’s position in the marketplace and what it’s long term future was and then the character in nature that it should take, and at the same time provided some insight as to what the long term, what the potential was for their east side, the newer development area. They definitely have a lot more potential then what they had anticipated. It was going to, it will require and they’re in the process of evaluating how much additional land they need to set aside for commercial development. They are re-looking some existing areas and opening up some potential re-development areas. And they have to do some very specific land planning in those existing and new areas as well if they really want to maximize long term. One of the things we identified was that some of the development was fine for the short term but in the long term it was inconsistent with the needs, the future needs of the community and in essence if they didn’t correct some of the things that were happening, they were going to short change their future potential. And the last issue that they ended up identifying and clearly need to deal with are some traffic related issues, and they have some very, well I wouldn’t call them unique but very sensitive geographic issues that they have to wrestle with because they’ve got 3 major boundaries in Cambridge. The Rum River, Highway 65 and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks that basically bisect the community down the middle from north to south and the crossover is really difficult. But that’s another example of what we’ve been involved with. Included in the information I think there’s some of our qualifications and I think you’ll find that we’ve done a lot of work in the metro area and around the country relative to this and I think City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 17 you’ll be very happy with the end result. Time wise, Kate mentioned, 4 months is our typical time table. 3 to 4 months and we would be targeting to have this completed by early April. If anybody has any questions, I’m happy to answer. Councilman Peterson: Okay, any questions? Thank you. I think what you presented and what we spent quite a bit of time on during work session a few weeks ago was going through some of the details and we’re certainly looking forward to the results and the opportunities that it will provide us. Just for our better interpreting the future so thank you. Bill Gorton: That’s it. …anybody has any other questions? Kate Aanenson: Sure, I think there’s some people from the Chamber. Councilman Peterson: Yep, would anybody with the Chamber like to make any comments and add any questions? Bill Traxler: Good evening. I’m Bill Traxler. I’m the 2006 Chair of the Chanhassen Chamber and I want to thank you for the opportunity to voice the Chamber support for the market analysis survey. Kate presented the information regarding analysis at our annual planning session on November 17th of this year. The Chamber Board and the Government Action Committee are of the opinion that it would provide meaningful data to support decisions regarding land use designations. Because of the growth that Chanhassen is experiencing we feel it’s prudent to review whether current land uses and zonings are appropriate. We feel it is proactive and that the timing is excellent based on the accelerated growth that will be likely accompanying the Highway 212 expansion. We also feel proper utilization of our real property resources will provide for an efficient tax base. And anyone familiar with the Chamber budget knows that we’re not, our resources are not abundant and that the Chamber unanimously approved $5,000 contribution exhibits our support. So thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Chamber. Councilman Peterson: Thank you, and before we vote on behalf of the citizens here and council we appreciate that. Thoughts and comments. Councilman Lundquist: I can’t believe Vernelle’s going to sit in the back row and not say anything. Councilman Peterson: We’d better vote quick then. Councilman Lundquist: Just a question. Kate you’re asking for, in the staff report, council accept or approve the contract and accept the $5,000 contribution. The contract or proposal piece that’s in the packet is the retainer. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that should be modified to be pay as you go, and that will be modified, and again the entire contract be reviewed by the City Attorney, but it will be modified, for the record, pay as you go and then we want it as a 4 month as was stated. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 18 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So you’d like those conditions to be added. Kate Aanenson: That’d be fine. Councilman Lundquist: As part of that and then Roger’s going to do a contract too in addition to what… Kate Aanenson: Yeah… Roger Knutson: We have a standard formal contract for professional services that would be very appropriate. We’ll just plug this information into that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, slid into that… Councilman Peterson: Hearing no further questions, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we approve the amended proposal or contract to be developed with the McComb Group for the retail market study to be pay as you go and with the 4 month time line, and to accept, graciously accept the $5,000 contribution from the Chamber of Commerce. Councilman Peterson: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman Peterson: It’s been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the attached contract for the Market Analysis Study to be completed by the McComb Group, Ltd, amended to include a pay as you go clause and 4 month time line, using Entertainment TIF District as the funding source. The City Council also accepts the $5,000 contribution from the Chamber of Commerce. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. 2006 BUDGET: CONSIDER ADOPTION AND LEVY CERTIFICATION TO THE CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR. Greg Sticha: Good evening council members. Tonight we are here to, or one of the reasons we’re here this evening is to approve the 2006 budget, 2006 through 2010 CIP and 2006 tax levy. If you recall last week the City of Chanhassen held a Truth in Taxation hearing here at City Hall to give the public an opportunity to comment on the budget and levy proposed for 2006. Just as a side note, we were not legally required to do so, due to the fact that our levy increased less than the implicit price deflator set up by the State of Minnesota which was about 5%. Therefore any community levying less than 5% increase from the prior year legally would not have to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing. We decided to, as do many communities decide to go ahead and hold the Truth in Taxation hearings anyway to offer the public a forum to give City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 19 comments and feedback to City Council on the levy and proposed budget. What I’ve done tonight is put together an adaption of the power point that I presented last week at the Truth in Taxation hearing. A couple of these slides I’m just going to go through very briefly to kind of review some of the numbers. And then at one point here I’m going to comment on a suggestion given by Councilman Lundquist to kind of clarify a few things that maybe were a little unclear after last week. The first slide goes into what the 2006 budget, general fund budget expenditures are proposed for 2006. Total expenditures in the amount of $8.9 million. A 7.1% increase from ’05. Revenues in the amount of $8.6 million, a 3.7% increase from ’05. Noting the one item of related significant differences, the reduction in the permit revenue. We’re anticipating it to be flat with this year’s permit revenue rather than in excess of the budget that we are anticipating not reaching for 2005. And then this slide just kind of gives you an idea of where our general fund expenditure, history has gone over the last several years and also includes any transfers we have made to debt service over that time. What Councilman Lundquist noted to me and is apparent to someone who doesn’t deal with government finance a lot, as you might just kind of get glossy eyed when you start talking about increases and decreases and budgets and levies is the difference between the two. So briefly what I’ve put together are a few slides that kind of point out some of the highlights of each and the differences between the two. The budget is the amount of estimated annual expenses in the general fund that the city plans on spending. The difference between that and the levy is the amount of taxes needed to pay for those expenses in the general fund and other funds not supported by other revenues or fees. What this comes down to basically, and I hate to use this term but it’s kind of a plug number in the general fund. The general fund has a budget amount, a budgeted amount of expenditures. If you look at for 2005 the general fund budget expenditures were $8.3 million. For 2006 it was $8.9 million. If you subtract out the general fund revenues that support those general fund expenses, not including property taxes, but also reducing for estimated delinquent taxes, that amount is about $2.5 million. That leaves you a hole to be plugged of $6.399 million. This is the amount that the city needs to levy for just the purpose of the general fund to maintain a balanced budget. Unlike the federal and state governments, city governments, local governments do not have the option of approving an unbalanced budget. 2005 general fund levy, if you look at for comparative purposes was $6 million 251. Therefore the actual levy that the City is requiring for the general fund in 2006 compared to 2005 is an actual increase in the levy. What then is passed onto the taxpayers are all levies. Not just the general funds, but any levy for any other funding sources and/or debt. The next two slides list all the levies that the city has a funding need for. The general fund, which we just talked about, we increased from $6 million 251 to $6 million 399. The capital replacement fund, which we kept the levy the same from the prior year, the MSA street and trail fund which is basically for the use of our sealcoating projects for the upcoming year. Then we have a whole list of debt obligations that the city has over various amounts of different types of debts. Now the total tax levy bill makes up all of these amounts, not just the general fund. So when you talk about the levy increasing for the general fund, the total amount of levy, if you look at the bottom line is, total levy for the city is $9 million 354 versus $9 million 439 of the prior year. Which means we had some reductions in some other areas. In particular, if you look at the park referendum, the amount we are levying to meet the park referendum debt is over $200,000 less than the prior year. This, as most of you are aware, is in large part due to, or totally due to the $285,000 use of general fund reserve the City Council decided to do for the upcoming year. In addition the library referendum went up a little bit, and if you go back to the other slide, general obligation debt went down just a little. The EDA stayed City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 20 about the same and special assessment debt and the need for levying for a special assessment debt went up slightly. So what happened here is, while the general fund levy did go up from 2005 to 2006, any increases were offset by reductions in other levies, and in particular debt service levies and most highly visible in the park referendum levy in which we decided to use general fund reserves to reduce. So when you talk about reductions, increases, etc, the levy or what actually is going to affect a property tax owner is going down. When you hear the word increase, it is true that the total budget of the general fund, the amount that we plan on spending in general fund dollars is increasing from the prior year. However we are seeing reductions in that amount and offsetting revenues and reductions in other levies, debt levies to make up the difference to give us a net decrease in all levies across the city. Now I hope that makes some sense to some people. Councilman Lundquist: Raise your hand if you got that. Greg Sticha: Alright. But that kind of explains where we are with the levies and budget for the upcoming year. The effect on a homeowner, as we talked about last time, is a decrease in their property tax bill on a $400,000 home, we’re looking at about $22 decrease. On a $300,000 home, it’s about a $13 decrease and on a $200,000 home, it’s about an $8 decrease. My recommendation tonight is that the City Council adopt the tax levy, budget and the CIP as presented in your packet and it is also the same budget, and tax levy presented last week at the Truth in Taxation hearing. At this time I will turn it back to council and ask if they have any questions or comments. Councilman Peterson: I pass it back to you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: It’s officially passed, thank you. Questions for staff. On this. The public hearing was held last week at our Truth in Taxation hearing. I think the, any issues that were raised there are addressed or can be addressed separately. If there’s no question for staff, I’ll bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Last year I said a similar thing and I think this year I can even reinforce that further by saying I’m extremely proud of the efforts that the staff and this council have done to work for the citizens of this community to maintain the lower taxes. I think that kudos go up to a large number of people on the staff and I’m just in the number of years that I’ve been doing this, which are increasing rapidly, this is probably the proudest I’ve been because we’ve been able to do it consistently. One year it’s pretty easy to do. It’s 2 and 3 that we’ve done I think is truly a testament to this council’s commitment to support the citizens so I applaud staff and I applaud my fellow council people. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson. This is kind of my first budget process and I want to thank Todd for kind of holding my hand through it at some points and can I get a graph on it but I feel confident that I think we are spending our tax, or our citizens money wisely and we are watching that bottom line and we’re providing high quality services… City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 21 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Thanks Mr. Mayor. I said in my editorial about the political grandstanding, all that aside I guess this is where we get to grandstand, right? I would echo comments before again and there is a lot of numbers. There’s a lot of stuff in there that can be difficult to grasp but Greg, you did a nice job of adapting, trying to lay that out in, you feel like Chris Berman up there in the fastest 3 minutes I guess in finance but you know the important things I think for people to realize, short of the numbers, which you can dive into if you want and Greg and staff, or that would help you get into that is that the general fund, the budget there is increasing. Those are things, salaries, natural gas that it costs to heat the library and the rec center and some of that stuff. You know sheriff’s contract. All of those things that it takes to run the city every day are going up. Our employees are going to get raises. We’re going to continue to do programming and all of those things, and those things do take more money year after year but the important thing is, that we kept an eye on the actual bottom line and offset that with other decreases in other areas. So back to what Councilman Peterson said is, you know you can juggle it from one spot to another but the amazing thing is that we continue that record of tax flat or reduction and over that time have been able to do it, employees getting raises. Continue to improve those programs. We’re still plowing the streets. We’re building a water treatment center. We’re opening up new developments. We’re doing all those things and yet we’re not taking more money to do that, so either that’s I think the way that if you look at that as a whole, where you can give in one area, you have to take in some other areas and you have to look at that thing as a whole and provide the best services that we can. And as I said in that letter again, Todd you and your staff, you know it’s not an easy task always but we’ve made it 3 years in a row so it’s good to be there and this year with the actual levy decreases, it’s pretty impressive too. Put us up against the list of cities in the state, in the metro area, anywhere, you’re not going to find a lot of matches so it’s, this is an easy one to go forward with so again thanks for everyone’s participation and hopefully as taxpayers and residents that that’s what you’re looking for in that is to provide the same services at the same or less money year after year. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I won’t repeat the comments. When you’re up here you always listen to the comments of the other council members and try to count your votes. So far I think there are 3 in favor of a decreased levy so, it looks the direction we’re going but I think it, I say that somewhat in jest. Councilman Lundquist I think did a good job with an editorial in the paper commenting about some of the issues. As a council we, for the last 3 years had been directing staff to focus on property taxes paid by the average homeowner and focusing on not increasing that amount. And to Councilman Peterson’s point, we’ve been able to do that with staff’s support and I say that very clearly that it’s not those of us up here getting the job done. It’s us working together and so to Todd and Greg and all the direct reports, I appreciate your efforts because as much as we say here’s the direction we want to go, all of you have been willing to stand up and say okay, here’s how we’re going to get there and that’s very much appreciated. Councilman Peterson said you know it’s easy to do something one year and then worry about next year next year. Here over the last 3 years we’ve seen the average assessed value of a home increase between 25 and 30 percent in the city of Chanhassen, and during that same time the property taxes paid, dollar for dollar on that same home have gone down. And yet as Councilman Lundquist said, and I won’t repeat it, went through the fact that we’re not doing it by not giving staff increases. We’re not doing it by cutting out services. In fact we’re, we City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 22 continue to grow and demand for city services continue to increase. We’re investing in our city, in our parks and in our streets. We’re continuing to develop and grow and we’re taking the benefit of that growth to support the increase where it is within the operating budget. I agree with Councilman Peterson. This is a record that we can all be proud of and we should be. As importantly, what we’ve done over the last few years is focus on long range planning and putting together long term projections, both for operating budgets as well as capital investments as well as our utility funds and in doing so we can take comfort in knowing that the decisions we’re making now are not jeopardizing a future council with decisions. One of the things that we emphasized is if we’re going to save money today, what’s that going to mean for tomorrow or next year or 5 years from now, and looking out and making sure that we can identify that we’re not putting the city in an unfair or disadvantaged financial situation because we’re holding the line today. I’m comfortable that we’re not and that’s why it’s easy to vote for these budgets that are coming through because we’re not delaying or creating a problem down the road, and that’s just as important as achieving today’s objectives so, to my fellow council members as well as to Mr. Gerhardt and his staff, thank you for all your efforts in getting this budget and putting this where it is from a levy standpoint. Looking for opportunities and continuing to focus on sound financial management for the city. It’s very much appreciated. Any other comments or discussion? Councilman Lundquist: I move that we approve the budget and CIP as published. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just before you say something I’ve got to, I’m next in line here so. I want to thank my staff for the job that they did. It was, you know we start this budget process in July and we sit down and we talk about the coming year and this budget is one of not cuts. It has overall increased from last year’s budget but from a levy standpoint we’re operating on new growth. That doesn’t mean an increase in your market value of existing homes. It’s new homes that have come into Chanhassen. We’ve got additional streets to plow. We have additional parks to maintain and we have more residents to talk to on a day to day basis. So this is a growing community and we’re, I think the Mayor kind of took my thunder on that, is that this isn’t a long time budget decrease. We have a plan. We’ve had a plan for the last 3 years. From a budget standpoint we looked out 5 years and we also look at our debt and this city has had a lot of debt over the years and we’re watching that debt and we’re managing it. We’re also planning for other new and exciting things in the community. We’re going to need to expand buildings, public works, fire stations. We’re going to have to add more parkland and we’re planning for that. I just want the community to feel comfortable that we’re looking down the line and that we do have vision to see what the future of Chanhassen is and that we are planning for that. Again this budget takes into account replacement of equipment. We’re re-building our streets. We have money in that to do either sealcoats, mill and overlays and total street reconstruction so, there’s a lot that goes into planning this budget and getting it to this point and I want to thank my City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 23 staff. I want to thank the council for your direction and support in that and look forward to next year’s process. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? If not there’s been a motion to adopt the budget and levy. It’s been seconded. There’s no other discussion we’ll proceed with the vote. Resolution#2005-104: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adopt the 2006 budget and levy certification to the Carver County Auditor, and Resolution#2005-105: to adopt the 2006-2010 CIP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONTINUATION OF THE GALPIN CROSSING APPLICATION. Mayor Furlong: Where are we on the agenda? Councilman Peterson: The point I left is the discussion of the vote for the Galpin Crossing. Mayor Furlong: Galpin Crossing, okay. So we’ll bring that up now? Have we had a staff report and was it tabled? Councilman Peterson: Yes, it was tabled. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Has the applicant presented? Where are we in the process there? Just council discussions? Councilman Peterson: Council discussions and voting for or against. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let’s start with discussion then on the, by the council. Has that already taken place as well? Councilman Peterson: No, it hasn’t. I’d be happy to go first Mr. Mayor. I think that I agree with staff’s recommendations on housing on the north side and I think that their ideas of gathering, you know lowering the number of buildings on the south side I think would be prudent to do. I think you would provide some better pedestrian flow and better look and feel. I mean that’s a pretty visible intersection for us and I think that that being said, I think a smaller number of buildings might be more appropriate and I think that as we move ahead with this concept, I’ll voice my opinion that as I said earlier, that because this is a highly visible area of our city that I think, I certainly will and I hope the rest of the council will too, is, as we have in other areas of Highway 5 corridor, hold a pretty high standard for what goes in there. As far as architecture, as far as just general look and feel and functionality and needing that area so. I would certainly consider to move ahead with this and adhere to staff’s recommendations. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I also am willing to go ahead with this. I look forward to seeing what the retail market study says about it. I’m hoping that it’s the right thing so we can use of City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 24 our office industrial land that we need to make up right there, it’d be a good spot for it. On Highway 5 and because it’s a PUD I’m hoping too that we can hold it to some of those standards that we discussed at our work session. Councilman Peterson brought that up you know to probably push them to rather make it something that stands out and we can be proud. Right now I guess that’s nothing at this point. We’re just here to discuss the whole concept so I’m in support of allowing the traffic study and… Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Echo that I’m in support of it in concept. Over rely on Kate and staff as you work through this to fine tune. We haven’t gone through some of the recent ones, the Town and Country and some of those things, I think you get a feel or flare for where we’re at and the standards that will put this against so I think there’s a lot of work yet to do on it but certainly in favor of future and then will also look to see what that retail market study says as well. That would be a good bit of information and I guess we’ll have to find another A number one sign location for campaign signs now. They don’t get much better than that so, but no. It’s a good point. Good spot so let’s put a good development on it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts and from the comments that I’ve heard here from the council it doesn’t appear to be any significant changes between what was presented here this evening and the staff report, and I think for that reason I’m comfortable the issues that concern me have already been raised by the other council members so I’m comfortable that staff will work with the developer to ensure that those are addressed. I think that overall this is good use for this property as recommended by staff and am in favor of the concept plan subject to the recommendations that I’ve heard here this evening as well as those contained in the staff report. Fortunately with the concept and with the benefit of the PUD, I think that gives us the ability to really get a development that we will all be proud of. What page does the, are there any additional comments on this? Kate Aanenson: The conditions start on page 9. And the motion. Bottom of the page. Mayor Furlong: Is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that City Council approves Concept PUD for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin, subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review and conditions 1 through 33. As published in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I’ll proceed with the vote. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 25 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the concept planned unit development for a twin home and office development project located at the northwest corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard, subject to addressing the following issues as part of the next phase of development review: 1. Development will require a land use amendment from residential to office for the southern eight acres, conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, preliminary Planned Unit Development, site plan review, and subdivision review with a variance for the private street. 2. The development needs to comply with the design standards for commercial, industrial and office institutional developments. Additional building detail needs to be provided to ascertain the quality of the proposed development. 3. Planned Unit Developments require that development design standards be developed for the project. 4. The following building and parking setbacks will be incorporated in the design standards: 70 feet from Highway 5, 50 feet from West 78th Street and Galpin Boulevard, 25 feet from private streets, 30 feet from the western property line, 50 feet from Bluff Creek, 40 feet from the Bluff Creek Overlay district primary zone boundary and 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 5. Reduce the number of building sites proposed on parcel B. 6. Verify that all buildings would comply with the proposed and required setbacks. 7. The goals set forth in the Bluff Creek Watershed Resources Management Plan (BCWNRMP) for the Lowlands Region are to be incorporated in the further development of the plan. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. A preliminary grading plan must be prepared. 10. A preliminary utility plan must be prepared. 11. The applicant must provide storm water calculations for any proposed subdivision. The development will need to provide storm water ponding on site for treatment prior to discharge into the wetlands or creek. The development must meet pre-development runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year storm. On site storm water ponding must be sufficient to meet all city water quality and quantity standards. 12. Erosion and sediment control measures will be required in accordance with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 26 Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit. Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 13. This project will be subject to Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) connection charges for water quality and water quantity. 14. A MnDOT and Carver County permit will be required for access to the site. 15. The applicant will need to submit a survey showing existing trees and woodlands along with canopy coverage calculations and proposed reforestation. 16. The applicant will be required to pay park fees pursuant to city ordinance. 17. The applicant will need to provide pedestrian connections internally between the buildings and from the site to adjacent trails and sidewalks. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around the wetland basin. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the city’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. 19. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and required buffer and setback will need to be incorporated on the plans. 20. All of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone should be included as an Outlot. 21. The Bluff Creek corridor primary zone boundary and the required setback shall be indicated on the grading plan. 22. The development will require a landscaping plan. Staff recommends that significant landscape screening and berming be incorporated along Highway 5 as well as West 78th Street. 23. The developer will need to locate all significant trees on the site and provide a calculation of existing canopy coverage as well as proposed tree removal. 24. The following landscape and tree preservation issues are applicable to the Galpin Crossings site: Parcel A § Show Bluff Creek Primary Zone and setbacks. § Habitat restoration/enhancement around wetland and Bluff Creek. City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 27 § Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. § Show existing trees outside of Primary Zone on landscape plan. Parcel B § No overstory trees allowed under overhead utility lines. § Show overhead utility lines on landscape plan. § Tree preservation calculations and landscape plan including reforestation and bufferyard plantings. § Meet parking lot landscape requirements. § Meet bufferyard landscape requirements. § Show existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street on landscape plan. 25. Galpin Crossing shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. 26. The commercial buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 27. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 28. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 29. The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to; allowable size and fire-resistive construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine compliance at this time. 30. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures. 31. The developer shall have soil borings made to determine the suitability of the site for development. 32. A traffic study be completed for the proposed development.” 33. The applicant shall not submit for preliminary review until the Retail Market Study has been completed by the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CITY MANAGER’S PERFORMANCE REVIEW: ANNOUNCE RESULTS. Mayor Furlong: Item number 6 on the agenda refers to the City Manager’s performance review. The City Council met in executive session on Monday, December 5th 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 excellent year of work… City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 28 personal goals and those of the City Council and together with this staff and the City Council coordinated and executed on a number of strategic initiatives for our city. Some of the major accomplishments this year include the advancement of the City’s 2005 Municipal Utility Service Area in accordance with our comprehensive plan through an inclusive process with property owners and developers. Completed a review of the city’s public safety needs and police contracting services with Carver County Sheriff’s Department. We broke ground on the city’s first fresh water treatment plant, construction of which will be completed next year. Preserved a location for a future water treatment plant on the west side of our city necessary to support our growth. Completed a planned 2005 street and trail improvement projects, including the redesign of Lake Lucy Road and trail between Powers Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard. And the city trail along Minnewashta Parkway. Worked with MnDot on the design and beginning construction of new Highway 212. Completed a multi-year playground equipment reinvestment program in many of our community and neighborhood parks. Completed a city wide citizen survey. Improved and maintained our city’s financial position and outlook by adhering to a comprehensive 5 year financial budget, debt service and property tax plan the results of which were demonstrated earlier this evening with the approval of our 2006 budget and declining tax levy. And earlier this year was exemplified by Standard and Poors reaffirmation of their AA- credit rating for the city, a rating that only the top 5 percent of cities receive. The list of accomplishments are too numerous to state here but it is clear that Mr. Gerhardt’s leadership, strategic initiative and overall job performance have helped to make the City of Chanhassen a better place for all of us to live and work. In consideration of his performance the City Council discussed increasing Mr. Gerhardt’s total compensation in 2006 by 6% above that which he received in 2005 and changing his compensation to a salary only base plan consistent with other municipalities. At this time I would move that the City Council approve the changes to Mr. Gerhardt’s compensation for 2006 as we discussed in executive session and as I have summarized here, and I would ask for a second from council. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve increasing the City Manager’s total compensation in 2006 by 6% above that which he received in 2005 and changing his compensation to a salary only base plan consistent with other municipalities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, the City of Chanhassen is proud to have you as our city manager and we thank you for your continued service and commitment to the City of Chanhassen. Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Well I’d like to thank City Council. I’ve had a little bit of help too upstairs and out at the public works. I’ve got a great staff and it’s been a fun year working with the council. We did accomplish a lot of projects and look forward to next year. Excited to get the water treatment plant up and running. Starting to install utilities in the 2005 MUSA area and starting a City Council Meeting – December 12, 2005 29 new chapter, new growth area in the Lyman/Audubon area. Again, thank you for your support and look forward to 2006. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Would any council members like to make any additional comments at this time? Very good. I’d like to thank Councilman Lundquist for coordinating our efforts with regard to this year’s review for the city manager. Appreciate your efforts. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: I’d like to distribute for the council here, and I have some extra copies. Doing this humbly but nonetheless as information. Earlier this week I received a letter from the Governor’s office appointing me to serve on a new advisory committee for the Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee. This was a committee that was established in 2005 by the legislature to look at drinking water, fresh water supply from a planning process throughout the metropolitan area. In addition this council, or on this committee will be chaired by Peter Bell who is the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council. Also there will be the commissioners from Agriculture, Health, Departments of Health, Natural Resources, and Pollution Control Agency. The way the law was written they were looking for 5 or 7 county and city representatives. 5 from the cities and one from each of the 7 county metro area and it will be my honor to serve, not only representing the City of Chanhassen but also Carver County on this board. So it should be a lot of fun. I think with the work that we’ve done in our city with regard to water treatment over the last few years, a number of the cities, well cities find their own balance with regard to how they want to pursue their drinking water needs and we went through that process ourselves and I think that will be something that I hope this body will look at as well when it’s looking at planning the water resources for our 7 county metro area. So this will be one of the ways that we can serve as well so I wanted to share that information with the council. Do we have your, any questions on that or not? I’ll try to keep the council up to date with the progress there as well. Did we already deal with administration? Is there anything else to come before the council this evening? Councilman Lundquist: Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. Mayor Furlong: Exactly. This is our last meeting of this current year so we wish everybody a happy holidays, Merry Christmas. Good New Year. We’ll meet again the second Tuesday of January as a council and immediately following this meeting the Economic Development Authority will meet right here in the council chambers. That is open to the public so anybody’s welcome to stay or come and join us as well. Is there anything else to come before the council this evening? If not I would ask that my, I’d be happy to hit the gavel. Is there a motion to adjourn? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES DECEMBER 6, 2005 Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I, and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Annette Ellson Chanhassen Max Ingram Excelsior Colton Peshek Chanhassen Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY CODE; SUBDIVISIONS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on grandfathering current cul-de-sacs longer than 800 feet, if there is a need for a section stipulating the minimum length of the street stub, and clarification on the requirement for the 60 by 60 foot house pad and 30 foot driveway width. Acting Chair McDonald opened the public hearing. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive asked for clarification on the school district demographics, parkland requirements and clarification of the term “access driveway”. Acting Chair McDonald closed the public hearing. There was no further discussion and the following motion was made. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE; ZONING. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke suggested rearranging the columns in the table at the bottom of page 3 of the ordinance to make it easier to understand. Acting Chair McDonald opened the public hearing. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 2 Drive asked for clarification of Section 20-615 and the picture showing a double cul-de-sac. Acting Chair McDonald closed the public hearing. The following motion was then made. Zorn moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RENT AUTOMOBILES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 227 WEST 79TH STREET (INSIDE MASTER COLLISION). APPLICANT ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-41. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Undestad asked for clarification on where the rental cars would be parked on the property. The applicant, Rick Mendlik stated he was available to answer questions. Acting Chair McDonald opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. The following motion was made. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit #05-41 for the establishment of an automobile rental facility in the Highway and Business District (BH), based on the findings of fact with the following conditions: 1. No unlicensed and inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the premises. 2. All maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building. 3. No outside storage or display is allowed, except vehicles for rent. 4. No outdoor speaker system or outdoor telephones shall be allowed without approval from the City Council. 5. Parking setbacks shall be applicable for parking/storage areas. 6. Required customer and employee parking spaces shall not be used for rental vehicle storage. 7. Vehicle sales are not permitted. 8. The number of rental vehicles shall not exceed 15. 9. Only automobiles owned by the rental agency shall be stored on the property. 10. Parking spaces allocated for rental vehicle storage shall be designated. One and two- tenths parking space shall be provided per rental vehicle. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 3 11. No signs shall be attached to vehicles. 12. Three additional parking spaces shall be allocated for the use of employees and customers. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORCHARD GREEN: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGEL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF), LOCATED AT 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE. APPLICANT PETER KNAEBLE, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-42. Public Present: Name Address Steve Lynch Minneapolis John Dragseth Chanhassen Matt Pavek Golden Valley Peter Knaeble Golden Valley Ralph & Edith Livingston 2631 Orchard Lane, Excelsior Ken Lang 2631 Forest Circle Dan Rathman Orchard Lane Linda Conner Orchard Lane Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification if the lot size was being impacted by the disputed property line and how the proposed lot sizes compared with neighboring parcels. Commissioner Undestad asked for clarification of custom grading. The applicant, Peter Knaeble with Terra Engineering passed out a plat drawing for the commission. He spoke to the issues of working to resolve the property line dispute and the issue of custom grading the lots. Acting Chair McDonald open the public hearing. John Dragseth, 2600 Forest Avenue raised issues regarding the property line dispute, a concern with the house on this property being the second oldest house in the Carver County, tree loss, concern with the wetland and drainage, and that the plan doesn’t fit the character of the neighborhood. Acting Chair McDonald closed the public hearing. After discussion the following motion was made. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped “Received November 4, 2005”, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 4 2. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as preserved that are removed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 3. The water and sanitary hook-ups for lot 2 must be moved to the driveway in order to preserve the 12” maple. 4. The developer must obtain all permits necessary to remove the existing homes. 5. The grading plan must be revised as follows: a. All proposed contours must tie in to existing contours, particularly the 992’, 990’ and 988’ contours on the west side of Lot 1; and the 996’, 994’ and 992’ contours on the east side of Lot 3. b. Staff recommends that the low floor elevations for Lots 1 and 2 be lowered one foot to achieve an 8 foot walkout. Staff recommends that steps be installed in the garage on Lots 3 and 4 to achieve an 8 foot walkout. c. A drainage breakpoint elevation must be shown northeast of the building pad corner on Lot 3. 6. Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall events. 7. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The developer must acquire a Work in Right of Way Permit from the Engineering Department before commencing work in the right of way and shall submit a financial security to ensure that Orchard Lane and Forest Avenue are properly restored after the services have been installed. 10. The developer shall pay the $29,298.00 trunk and lateral water and sewer fees in cash with the final plat or assess them to the lots within the proposed development. The lateral connection charges can be assessed at 8% for 8 years. The trunk hookup charges can be assessed at 8% for 4 years. 11. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 12. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA and the Watershed District. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 5 13. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 14. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 15. The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s). 16. The plans shall be revised to expand the drainage and utility easement in a straight line from the point where the 978 elevation intersects the east lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, to where the 978 elevation intersects the 20’ sanitary sewer easement at the southern edge of Lot 4, Block 1. Standard drainage & utility easements shall be dedicated in all other locations. 17. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.02 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $2,208; the water quantity fees are approximately $5,464. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $7,672. 18. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Orchard Green pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total $16,000 (4 lots x $4,000). 19. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 20. Provide a cleanout on the sewer service for Lot 3. 21. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 22. The applicant shall resolve all property line disputes through legal verification with Carver County prior to Final Plat submittal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 6 PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK TWIN HOMES: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 101. APPLICANT MARTIN SCHUTROP, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-36. Public Present: Name Address Patty & Craig Mullen Chanhassen Heather & Derek Benson Chanhassen Martin Schutrop Chanhassen Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the location of the construction entrance, and layout of the twin homes on the property. Commissioner Zorn asked for clarification on the color scheme, and the outlot being dedicated as permanent open space. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on access onto Lyman Boulevard, pedestrian circulation, and the private street. Acting Chair McDonald asked for clarification on the trail system and lot coverage. The applicant, Martin Schutrop, 520 Lakota Lane in Chanhassen discussed issues of the site constraints with the pipeline running through the property, architectural design variations, pedestrian access to Bandimere Park, berming, and association covenants. Acting Chair McDonald opened the public hearing. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked for clarification of the landscaping plan and wanted to remind the Planning Commission that PUD’s should have high quality design standards reflective of the architecture and landscaping. She also pointed out a couple errors in the staff report regarding setback requirements and numbering discrepancies. Acting Chair McDonald closed the public hearing. After discussion the following motions were made. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating the property in the current Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development rezoning the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets with a variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 7 lots 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated October 28, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk connection on the south side of the street from the internal street cul-de-sac to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard shall be provided. 2. The development shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 3. Applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 84 trees. At least one tree is required in each front yard. Common areas must be sodded and provided with irrigation. Native plantings will be required along the southern edge of the development parallel to the wetland. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan planting list. 4. Applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the bufferyards. 5. 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. 6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 8. 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 Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 9. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and the new proposed road, and one in the area of Lot 13/14. 12. A minimum 16.5 foot buffer strip shall be maintained from the delineated edge of the wetland. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 8 13. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over all of Outlot B. The developer may dedicate Outlot B to the City. 14. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 15. All structures shall meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary of the Bluff Creek Overlay District as required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading shall occur within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. The plans shall be revised to eliminate grading within 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. 16. The plans shall be revised to include the City of Chanhassen’s standard detail 5300 for silt fence. Type 2 silt fence shall be used along the southern grading limits and at the normal water level of the pond. Type 1 silt fence shall be used elsewhere. Silt fence shall be installed around the storm water pond at the pond’s normal water level until surrounding areas have adequate vegetative erosion control established. 17. The plans shall be revised to include City of Chanhassen standard detail 5302A for Wimco or similar catch basin inlet protection. 18. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 19. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City, Carver County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements. 20. A SWPPP should be developed by Ryan Engineering for the site which would encompass an erosion and sediment control plan. The SWPPP is needed prior to applying for the NPDES permit. 21. Erosion control blanket is needed for the slopes NE of lot 18 and the southern slopes from about the 912 / 910 proposed contours to the bottom of the slope within 14 days of final grade. 22. Energy dissipation at the FES inlet to the permanent storm water pond is needed. A detail is needed. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 9 23. The proposed storm water basin must be used as a temporary sediment trap during construction and must be excavated in the initial construction phases of the development. A temporary diversion berm should be constructed to divert runoff from lots 18 to 11 into the pond. This should be included in the SWPPP. 24. A temporary outlet and / or a temporary stabilized EOF for the temporary basin is needed. 25. Inlet controls are needed for the CB’s within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed; Chanhassen city specifications are Wimco type inlet control or equal. 26. The silt fence as proposed is running up and down the slope along the west and east boundaries of the site. The silt fence must be installed with J-hooks to effectively provide sediment control and not concentrate runoff to the south. 27. A concrete washout area is needed in the SWPPP; silt fence, sump area and rock driveway should be used and could be located in Outlot A. 28. A permanent outlet structure is needed for the permanent storm water basin in the southwest corner of the pond. Detail is needed. 29. A stable emergency over flow (EOF) is needed for the permanent storm water basin. Riprap or a turf reinforcement mate (TRM) could be used and specifications and detail area needed. 30. The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on BMPs as needed or required. 31. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $21,857. 32. The final plans must include the following revisions: a. Existing contours within 100 feet of the proposed development must be shown on the plan. b. Note the top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls. c. Note the location and elevation of the emergency overflow on the east end of the cul de sac. d. A full-size drainage area map must be submitted. e. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk must be constructed on one side of the street. f. Show the proposed street light layout. g. A stop sign must be installed at the intersection at Lyman Boulevard. h. All plan sheets must be signed by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 33. If import or export of material is required for the development of this property, the applicant must submit a detailed haul route to the City. 34. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed/abandoned. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 10 35. The developer must field verify the sewer and watermain stub locations and elevations. If the stubs have not been installed the developer shall directional bore the utilities under Lyman Boulevard. All costs and permits associated with this work would be the developer’s responsibility. 36. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat and shall include all required information. 37. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 38. 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 (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Department of Health, MCES, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 39. Access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the benefiting properties for the private streets. 40. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project. 41. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Existing utilities and on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance applicable regulations. 42. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 43. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and cannot be constructed until a building permit is obtained. 44. The applicant shall create a Homeowners Association to take responsibility of the retaining walls and maintain them. 45. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 11 46. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official.” 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest corner of 101 and Lyman. 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. No grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor boundary. 2. All structures must meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: STONEFIELD: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF, SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 30 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 LYMAN BOULEVARD, APPLICANT PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-37. Public Present: Name Address Dave Hess 8682 Flamingo Drive Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification of the lot widths meeting ordinance. Commissioner Zorn asked for clarification on the classification of wetlands. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to explain the water management plan for this property. Commissioner Undestad asked for clarification on the size of the retaining walls. Nathan Franzen with Plowshares Development pointed out the unique features and plans for the site and addressed questions regarding drainage and tree loss. Acting Chair McDonald opened the public hearing. Dave Hess stated a concern that the overland drainage in Power Hill Park was a problem that needs to be fixed and concern with sledders going into the proposed drainage pond. Rick Dorsey asked for clarification of the drainage coming off this property and access onto Lyman Boulevard. The public hearing was closed. Following commission discussion the following motions were made. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 12 Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #05-37 for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on the plans stamped “Received November 18, 2005”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a right-of-way width variance, as shown on the plans stamped ‘Received November 18, 2005’, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed enlargement of the existing stormwater pond must be designed to meet the City’s minimum standards and coordinated and approved by the City Water Resources Coordinator. 2. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Storm sewer sizing calculations and a full-size drainage map must be submitted with the final plat for staff review and approval. 3. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. 4. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. 5. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 6. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Watershed District, MN Department of Health, Carver County and the Williams Pipe Line Company. 7. The developer must obtain written permission from the Williams Pipe Line Company to perform the proposed grading within the easement. The developer is responsible for complying with all conditions of the Williams Pipe Line Company and assumes full responsibility for work performed within this easement. 8. On the utility plan: a. Show all the proposed storm sewer pipe type, size and class. b. Show the sanitary sewer pipe slope and class. c. Show watermain pipe class (C900). Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 13 d. Add a storm sewer schedule. e. Show the existing storm sewer between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 within the center of the 20- foot utility easement. f. Show the stormwater manholes rim and invert elevations. g. Add a note to remove the temporary pond outlet control structure. h. The last street-accessible storm manhole discharging to the stormwater pond must be manhole with sump. i. Add a note: any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled. j. Extend the storm sewer farther to the south along the proposed street. k. Remove Lots 7 and 8 backyard storm sewer and add a storm sewer along the property line between Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 8 and 9 block 4. 9. On the grading plan: a. Show Type II silt fence adjacent to wetland, pond, creeks, etc. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Use class 5 storm sewer in the roadway; revise the note under general grading and drainage notes accordingly. d. Extend the swale between Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 farther to the east. 10. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 11. The underlying property has not been assessed for sewer or water improvements. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees will be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 12. All disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 13. Any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 14. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 15. The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost and construction of the lift station and forcemain and any associated costs. 16. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 14 the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 17. Add a “dead-end road” sign at the cul-de-sac. 18. On the plat, show all existing and proposed street names. 19. Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5204, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5217, 5221, 5232, 5234, 5240, 5241, 5300, 5301, 5302, 5302A and 5313. 20. Show the street lights and a stop sign on the plans. 21. Submit public utility plans and profile for staff review. 22. City Forester’s Conditions: a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 10/14/05. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 23. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Stonefield pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total $120,000 (30 lots x $4,000). Additionally, the applicant is required to construct the neighborhood asphalt trail connector to the property line as depicted on their preliminary plan submittals. 24. Water Resource Coordinator’s Conditions: a. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland D. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. b. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 15 c. The applicant shall work with the City’s consultant to accommodate regional and site- specific storm water needs. d. The approximate location and extent of drain tile shall be shown on the plans. The applicant shall provide details as to whether the tile line will be removed, abandoned in place or remain. If the tile is to remain, the flow from the tile shall be accommodated in the design of the storm water management plan. e. The applicant shall provide rate control and storm water treatment to reduce off-site impacts. To provide a low-gradient means for controlling rate and volume, the applicant shall consider cooperating with the City to construct a wetland in the rear portions of any number of Lots 1-8, Block 3. In the event that the applicant is interested in pursuing wetland construction for banking purposes, this planning shall be integrated with the City’s consultant’s storm water infrastructure planning. f. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure and storm water ponds. g. The developer asserts that, due to the steep grade in the southern portion of the property, custom grading would not save any additional trees. In addition, the developer maintains that the slope of the road and the location of the retaining wall make custom grading lots impractical. If the developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of staff that custom grading for their typical house pad would not result in additional significant tree preservation, mass grading of this area may be approved. h. The existing outlet structure of Pond A shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the City’s standard detail. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the pond. i. The portion of the silt fence that runs from the pipeline easement through Lot 7, Block 3 shall be moved upslope to the west by 30 to 60 feet to more clearly define the grading limits. The area of property between the silt fence and the gully and property line shall be seeded and mulched to control weeds and get a desirable cover crop in areas that were recently farmed. j. A temporary basin shall be constructed in the vicinity of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. The temporary sediment basin shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope area. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the basin shall be installed; details shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e. The basins must provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 16 k. Chanhassen Type 2 silt fence shall be provided for the perimeter of the site up to Lot 10, Block 3. From there, Type 1 may be used. Silt fence shall be shown on the plans around Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. l. Curbside inlet controls are needed; Wimco type or ESS type (or approved similar protection) inlet controls shall be used. Curbside inlet protection shall be provided for existing inlets adjacent to the site exit on Osprey Lane. City standard inlet protection details 5302 and 5302A shall be included in the plans. The proposed rear yard catch basin protection shall be revised; Wimco type, ESS type or equal must be used. The proposed silt fence shall be installed with additional rock around Chanhassen type 1 silt fence. m. The plans shall be revised to show energy dissipation for the flared end section on Lot 7, Block 3. n. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. o. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. p. In order to fund the maintenance and expansion of the BC-P4.10 storm water pond and construction of additional capacity, the costs will be allocated among the benefiting properties. The total cost of materials and construction will be divided by the number of acres in the resulting subwatershed. The City will be responsible for the acres contributing from land already developed, park land and land to be developed in the future (e.g., the Bongard parcel). The developer will be responsible for the acres contributing from their development. If, for any reason, the regional storm water facility is not constructed, the developer will be responsible for providing storm water quality and quantity management on the subject property and paying Surface Water Management connection charges in accordance with City Code. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $65,364. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 17 q. In conjunction with the BC-P4.10 storm water ponding project, land in addition to the land shown in Outlot A may be required. At this time, the estimated amount of land is approximately 0.5 acres. The developer and the City will seek to agree upon the terms of the use of land for ponding should additional land be required. The developer, if required, shall provide additional land for ponding. 25. Fire Marshall Conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be either removed from site or chipped. b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. A fire apparatus access road 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 Fire Code Section 503.2.3. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. 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. e. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable. f. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 26. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Planning Commission Summary – December 6, 2005 18 e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 27. The retaining walls shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 28. The City shall not be responsible for maintenance of storm water infrastructure on Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 3.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 15, 2005 as presented. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 6, 2005 Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Uli Sacchet STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I, and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Annette Ellson Chanhassen Max Ingram Excelsior Colton Peshek Chanhassen Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY CODE; SUBDIVISIONS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions? Papke: I’ll start. First of all the minimum cul-de-sac of 800 feet, minimum street length. Or maximum cul-de-sac length. Are there any that exceed this right now? Would any be grandfathered in as a result of this? Generous: Yes. There’s many cul-de-sacs that are longer than 800 feet, but this is just for new subdivisions that have to comply with this standard so. Papke: Next question. The temporary cul-de-sacs for the street stub, do we need a section in here stipulating the minimum length of the street stub, and what if you’ve got a 20 foot street stub? Does it make sense to put in a 90 foot diameter cul-de-sac? Generous: I don’t know. That may be Paul. Oehme: I think where this item comes into play is where one development’s being built and potentially another development will be built down the road and tie into that street stub. Typically we would see that, you know the street would be a lot longer than say 20 feet or 50 feet or what have you. It’d be a couple hundred feet, maybe even 1,000 feet but I mean they Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 2 need to show us where that’s going to be tied in and you know how that next development could tie into the existing or the proposed development so. I don’t see a problem with the language as it’s written currently. McDonald: Excuse me, would you identify yourself? Oehme: I’m sorry, I’m Paul Oehme. The City Engineer. Papke: We do have some examples fairly recently where they were fairly short. They were only perhaps 4 houses on them. The one up, right off of 41. There was a fairly short street stub there where we just, Yoberry Heights. Just south of Yoberry Heights. The stub that tied in was very short because that’s where I parked when I went out to take a look you know when it came up for approval. And it just seemed like boy, a cul-de-sac would be real incongruous in a situation like that, especially if it’s going to be there for 20-30 years. Some of these can last for quite a while. Oehme: Sure. It’s again a more or less a life safety issue and also a maintenance issue as well. To get our fire trucks in and out of there. You know our plow trucks as well, to maintain those streets. Papke: So you’re pretty adamant you want a cul-de-sac regardless of the length of the stub? Oehme: Well it doesn’t have to be, I guess we could look at different types of cul-de-sacs. It could be a hammer head or some other variations of such that accommodate maybe the topography or how that street stub is put in there. Papke: Okay. And the last one, the 60 by 60 foot building pad on 30 foot access driveway. Are you assuming that it’s 30 feet wide for the total length of the driveway and this is regardless of lot size? I mean some of these, some lots. Generous: That would be the assumption. If they don’t know what’s going in there, this would be like a worst case scenario on the lot. So if it doesn’t meet those criteria, then maybe they need a bigger lot. Papke: So that would be a pretty compelling case for a developer to want to, to know what they’re putting in. Generous: Exactly. Papke: I mean to suffer the penalty of a 30 foot, is this going to be onerous? I mean we have some cases here where we’re correcting, like with the tree diameter. It was too onerous. Is this going to be viewed 2 or 3 years from now as being too onerous for developers to follow? Generous: I’m not sure it’d be too onerous. We’re seeing the opposite happening. Developers are coming in and their buildings are getting bigger and 3 car garages and next it will be 4 car garages and they’ll want to have this width so, it’s just the way to calculate what the potential impact of that. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 3 Papke: Okay. That’s all I have. Keefe: You actually hit on all pretty much. I’ve got just a follow-up note. The 800 feet, where does 800 feet come from? Generous: I’ll defer to Paul. Oehme: We also looked at other city standards as well and they vary, but we kind of hit on the 800 foot. Typically you get I think about 14 units on that type of street. Try to limit, especially on cul-de-sacs, try to limit dead end of watermains. Approximately 14 houses as well. If there is a watermain break on that cul-de-sac, you don’t want more than say 14 people to be out without service. We try to limit it to that. That kind of plays into the factor as well too, and then try to limit, you know if there’d be a natural disaster, how many people can’t get to the end of a cul-de- sac or dead end street. How many people should you be limiting on that cul-de-sac? Try to come up with some way of looking at, you know how do you want that, or how should I say? How many people do you want it limited on the cul-de-sac in the event of a natural disaster? Those type of things we looked at as well. McDonald: I only had one question for you, when you bring up the issue about the, if you don’t know what’s going to go on a particular pad and we’re going to use some assumptions. Is this going to get us to the point of a worst case scenario of the 25% impervious surface area that we will block out what that is so at least you know what you have to operate with? Generous: Yes, that’s part of the reason we’re putting it in there. McDonald: Okay. That’s all I had. No further questions or comments, then do I have a motion to adopt? Keefe: Public hearing? McDonald: I’m sorry. I’m getting a little ahead of myself. This is a public hearing so if anyone wishes to come forward and speak on this issue, please come up. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just have two questions about the issue of the school district demographics. How does this affect parkland being set aside for single family and multiple housing? Does it affect it at all? Generous: It would have potential effect. Currently we use 3 persons per household for single family homes to determine, for every 75 people the city requires 1 acre of parkland and so based on the size of the development, that’s how we know how much they need to provide, either through dedication or through fees. Janet Paulsen: So then parkland would increase for single family? Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 4 Generous: Well the requirement would be the same. How we get to it would be changed. The number of persons per household is actually higher for single family homes than any other type of housing unit and so it’s more accurately reflecting that information. Janet Paulsen: And how about the two family homes? Would that make less parkland for them? Generous: No, it would be, the current standard is 3 so that would remain the same. Janet Paulsen: Okay. Then I had a question also on the 60 by 60. What is the access driveway because I don’t recall that term being used before? Generous: Well it’s just the driveway from the street to the house. Janet Paulsen: Okay. It’s not a driveway easement? Generous: No. This is, it could be just called the driveway too I suppose. Janet Paulsen: Okay. And so that would have a 10 foot side setback too? Generous: Yeah, that’s what we’re proposing, yes. Janet Paulsen: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to comment on this ordinance? Well, seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting and turn it back to the commission. Comments, discussions? Do I have a motion then that we adopt? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. McDonald: Could I have a second? Zorn: Second. Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE; ZONING. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Kurt, want to start? Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 5 Papke: I just have one trivial one. At the bottom of page 3 you have this table of 3 columns. Maximum percentage of wall areas, square footage and then total square footage. Very confusing to have the columns in the order you have them. When I first read that I couldn’t figure out, you know if I’m a builder and I have to look up the maximum percentage, can you flip the first two columns or something like that? I mean because if I read this correctly what you’re saying is, if I have a wall area that’s 1,500 square feet then I got to go to row 3 and I can do at most 11% which is 198. Generous: Right. Papke: Can you just flip those? Generous: Yes we could, definitely. Papke: Okay. Keefe: I also have a small one. 4 over here you’re recommending elimination of the setback along the curve. Should we be adding in what the setback needs to be on the bubble? Because it doesn’t really say. It just says eliminate the setback along the curve but it doesn’t necessarily say. Generous: Well no, this is just for frontage. Keefe: Oh, okay. Generous: The setback would still be 30 feet. Keefe: Okay. Generous: Before we didn’t…90 foot lot width and…30 feet back. Now we’re saying count it right at the street or front property line. Keefe: Yep, I understand that. Never mind. McDonald: The only question I have for you concerns the new permit. Do you think that this will solve the problem we’re having with people adding things? Do you get calls most the time at least asking if there’s a permit required? Generous: Yes. McDonald: Okay. Generous: Truthfully they said no, there’s no permit required but there’s a zoning compliance review. Oh, okay, then they go. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 6 McDonald: Okay. At this time we will now move to the public comment. If anyone wants to come forward and comment on the changes to this ordinance. Please come up to the podium. State your name and address your comments to the commission. Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen again. I just have one comment about the amendment to Section 20-615 about the cul-de-sacs. The picture that was shown in the actual code that will be placed in the code book shows a double cul-de-sac and I was wondering what would be the purpose of showing a double cul-de-sac. Generous: That was just a graphic that I had and the one that’s in the ordinance. We could eliminate one for all practical purposes. Janet Paulsen: I just didn’t think it was a very good way to develop. Have like 7 cars meeting at one spot. And then how about the driveways? I just feel like driveways are structures and they should be set back 10 feet all along the property line for protection of neighbors and also for drainage. Protection for trees and shrubs. Just 5 feet I don’t think is enough for a tree. I also feel like a 50 foot setback from a high pressure power line would be advisable especially since the municipal research and servicing center recommended that. And also I would like to know how wide is the easement itself. Generous: The ones I looked at varied. Standard I believe is the 60 is the one I saw most. Some were at 75. Some were even smaller than that. Janet Paulsen: I just think safety’s a paramount. That’s all I have. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting on revision of Chapter 20 and bring it back to the commission for deliberations. Who would like to start? Keefe: I’ll just the one follow-up. Just in regards to the side setback. Currently the code is what? Currently on the side setback. Generous: It says driveway shall be setback at least 5 feet from the side property lines beginning at 20 feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is received from the city. Now I’m not sure what that means. Actually means is it a 5 foot setback? Is it at 0 until you get 50 feet back and that’s been one of my problems with that section of the ordinance all along. Keefe: So is your interpretation similar to what’s here? Generous: What we’re proposing, my interpretation is more restrictive. Keefe: Because it was ambiguous before so… Generous: Right. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 7 Keefe: …people to be in closer or within the 10 foot area closer to the street, right? Generous: Right. Keefe: Where in this case you’re clarifying that they have to be 10 feet back. At least 20 feet back from. Generous: Correct, for the first 20 feet. Keefe: Yeah, okay. McDonald: Any other comments? Then based upon that, if someone would want to propose that we adopt staff’s recommendations. Zorn: I’ll make that proposal. That the Planning Commission recommends approval for the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Zorn moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RENT AUTOMOBILES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 227 WEST 79TH STREET (INSIDE MASTER COLLISION). APPLICANT ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-41. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone have any questions? Mark, you want to start? Undestad: Just the parking Josh. Where they’re going to be parking the rental cars out there. I mean it’s tough backing up in there anyway, right? Metzer: Right. From what I understand, at least in the beginning right now they’re going to be using the back portion of that lot. Keefe: And they can have a total of 15, is that what it says in the ordinance? Or that they can’t exceed 15 rental cars. They’re going to have 3-4 employees. Metzer: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 8 Keefe: Is there any requirement for shared parking agreement or anything on that property? Metzer: What we’ve gotten is the property owner’s approved signature. Letter approving the Enterprise’s parking plan. Keefe: Okay. Because they’re not currently anywhere near utilizing all the spaces there. Metzer: No. Keefe: Yeah, okay. That’s all I have. McDonald: Deborah? Zorn: No questions. McDonald: Okay. Do we have an applicant here? Why don’t you come on up. State your name please and we’ll be glad to listen. Rick Mendlik: Hi, my name’s Rick Mendlik from the city of Coon Rapids. If you have any questions I’m here to answer them for you. We’re just looking to come into the community. We are currently servicing you guys from Eden Prairie so we’re looking to have something so it’s not quite a haul. Be more efficient for our operation and for your customers as well. For our customers here, residents as well. And I think we would make a good addition to the community. McDonald: Does anyone have any questions? Kurt? Papke: What’s your relationship to the applicant or your position? Rick Mendlik: I’m with Enterprise Rent-a-Car. I’m the Operations Manager. I deal with this sort of stuff and with facilities themselves. McDonald: I guess we have no questions for you. At this point we’ll turn it over to any public comment. Anyone wishing to make a comment on this motion, please come forward and state your name and we’ll listen to you. Seeing no one come forward, we will close the public meeting and I will bring it back to the commission for deliberations. Why don’t you start Kurt. Papke: I think this would be a nice asset to the community down there. There’s lots of service centers, gas stations, you know car repair centers. Perfect location for this kind of thing. I think this is super. Zorn: I would agree. McDonald: I have no comments either. At this point can I get a motion that we adopt the recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 9 Keefe: Sure, I’ll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit #05-41 for the establishment of an automobile rental facility in the Highway and Business District (BH), based on the findings of fact with the following conditions, 1 through 12. McDonald: Okay, do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit #05-41 for the establishment of an automobile rental facility in the Highway and Business District (BH), based on the findings of fact with the following conditions: 1. No unlicensed and inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the premises. 2. All maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building. 3. No outside storage or display is allowed, except vehicles for rent. 4. No outdoor speaker system or outdoor telephones shall be allowed without approval from the City Council. 5. Parking setbacks shall be applicable for parking/storage areas. 6. Required customer and employee parking spaces shall not be used for rental vehicle storage. 7. Vehicle sales are not permitted. 8. The number of rental vehicles shall not exceed 15. 9. Only automobiles owned by the rental agency shall be stored on the property. 10. Parking spaces allocated for rental vehicle storage shall be designated. One and two- tenths parking space shall be provided per rental vehicle. 11. No signs shall be attached to vehicles. 12. Three additional parking spaces shall be allocated for the use of employees and customers. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 10 PUBLIC HEARING: ORCHARD GREEN: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGEL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF), LOCATED AT 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE. APPLICANT PETER KNAEBLE, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-42. Public Present: Name Address Steve Lynch Minneapolis John Dragseth Chanhassen Matt Pavek Golden Valley Peter Knaeble Golden Valley Ralph & Edith Livingston 2631 Orchard Lane, Excelsior Ken Lang 2631 Forest Circle Dan Rathman Orchard Lane Linda Conner Orchard Lane Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: I’ll start. The disputed area looks pretty small. Am I to assume that this would not materially affect any of the hard surface coverage calculations, setbacks, etc, etc.? Metzer: Right. From this survey that I have, I determined it’s anywhere from 1,400 to 20 hundred square feet difference may on Lot 4. This would reduce it from 26,600 to 23,000 something. So still well over the minimum lot area. We’re talking a width of, at most 14 feet wide along the length of the property, which would still allow Lot 4 to meet lot width requirements. Papke: Okay. Last question. We received an e-mail, I think it was on this case this afternoon where one of the neighbors had some concerns about these lots being smaller than the neighboring lots. Do you have any statistics or numbers or any metrics we can look at on that regard? Metzer: Not significantly. Maybe a couple of the lots surrounding, immediately surrounding but a majority of, especially a majority of lots surrounding the entire Lake Minnewashta, these lots are considerably larger. Papke: Okay. Zorn: Just had one question. I wasn’t able to drive the site. Is there a sidewalk in this area at all? Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 11 Metzer: No. Zorn: No sidewalk? Metzer: No. Zorn: Okay. And the proximity to the playground. Metzer: That is 300 feet south along Forest Avenue. Zorn: Okay. Metzer: Approximately. Rough guess. Zorn: Okay, thanks. Undestad: Just one. On the grading plan on there, it has a note about all lots will be custom graded by the builder. Is it, grading these one at a time and, or will they come in here and ask for any of these lots out here, I’m just wondering what that means. Metzer: That perhaps is a better question for the applicant. McDonald: And I guess with that if the applicant wants to come forward. Please state your name and address. Peter Knaeble: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knaeble with Terra Engineering. We’re also the developers of the property. My address is 6001 Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley is where our office is. I’ve got a rendering and plat I’d like to pass out to the Planning Commission. We’ve read through the staff report. Been working with the staff for a number of weeks on this project and we concur with recommendations in the staff report. Again the only issue that we see is the, on the south part of the property it’s possible, a 10 to 12 foot overlap of the properties and our surveyor is working on that to try to come up with a resolution. We’re also talking to the County to try to establish what exactly what the resolution with the issues are for that. That overlap issue and again our interpretation would match Josh’s that even with the approximate overlap, that Lot 4 would still exceed the city’s standards, both for lot width and for lot area. The question on the custom grading for the lots, based on the wooded nature of the property we are proposed to do the two building removals, for the two small existing homes that are on the property. We would do that but we would leave it up to the builders to custom grading each pad. Not all 4 pads at once. Other than that we’re just here to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Keefe: What type of houses are you looking at having built on here? Peter Knaeble: Well we’re not the builders. …builders and I would expect typical two story, upright kind of houses. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 12 Keefe: Three stall garage? Peter Knaeble: Correct. McDonald: Mark? Nothing? Deborah? No? Okay. Thank you. Okay, this is a public meeting and with this I will now throw it open to the floor, if anyone wishes to come up and make comments on this proposal, please do so. State your name and address please. John Dragseth: John Dragseth, 2600 Forest Avenue, which you see as the orange property. I think Josh stated for you the resolution and the problem properly for that. I’m not going to waste the public’s time hearing about that. You do have my letter. I’ve been, and you can take a look at that. As far as resolving issues with the County, I think that’s addressed in the letter too so we’ll just leave that with you on that. I’ll address somewhat on a more general issue for my neighbors who are here and hopefully will come up later and talk. And that’s the job that you guys are tasked to do as a board here. It is an important job. It may seem like a disconnected job at times. You’re dealing with plats. You’re dealing with black and white plans. But you talk about driving the site. You’re actually dealing with things in the real world and neighbors, and I get to see what kind of work you did. I looked at some of the transcripts and just this last September I think it was you had a vote where you had to vote on whether someone’s going to be able to tear down the second oldest house in town. And that’s an important decision. That’s a real world decision and you have a very similar issue tonight. I’d refer you to the plat. The front plan on the plat and you’ll see a little square in the middle of that property. That probably is now the second oldest house in the County. I encourage you to go out there and take a look at that house. It’s the original farm house as I understand things. I hope one of my neighbors will come up and explain to you somewhat the history of that house. There’s also a number of dots on that plat. Those aren’t dots. They’re trees. They’re big trees. The dots aren’t to scale. You see 32 inches next to them. These are big oaks. They’re all coming down. If you guys vote that way. They will all come down. And they’ll be replaced with 2 ½ inch trees because that’s all that the statute requires. Take a look at the grading plan. I encourage you to look closely. Not one of those trees will stay. Now the plan doesn’t do a couple of other things justice either. It doesn’t show the wetland that’s south of the 2600 Forest Avenue property. I encourage you to come out and drive down my driveway and take a look. You’re welcome to come in and take a look at the wetland and see where all of this water is going to be draining when these houses go up. When these driveways go up, and where the runoff will be for it. I encourage you to come and take a look at that. It’s an important job that you have and I encourage you to do that. It also doesn’t show, and I understand you’ve received an e-mail from someone on this, that this plan doesn’t fit. You’ve got sitting on the table here a view of the entire property in yellow. That’s before subdivision. Next to the lot next door, which will now be well over 4 times as large as the subdivided property. I think, is Mr. Lang here? I think he’s, Ken what do you have next door? Ken Lang: 2.6 acres. John Dragseth: 2.6 acres. That’s across the street to the southwest. Dan, over an acre? Dan Rathman: 1.25. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 13 John Dragseth: 1.25. This does not fit. I don’t know what you’ve heard but this doesn’t fit. Who else here? They’re big lots around here. Stacking these things in with 15 foot setbacks on the side doesn’t fit. I encourage you to consider these points because when you come in to these meetings you often get one sided views. The preparation for these meetings is one sided. The developers who work with the city planners. You send out a notice 10 days before the meeting and you have people that try to rush to hurry up and come in and get their plans together and counter that point. Also I think you don’t get the full other side of it because there’s a sense of fatalism. I talked to one of the neighbors. Asked if they were coming. They said no, you know this never works out anyway. And so you’re not getting the entire other side of each of these fences. There’s this fatalism and from reading some of the transcripts I sense a similar fatalism from the board that your charter is limited. That there’s only so much you can do, and I disagree. I don’t think that’s true. If you look, the setback requirements. The lot size requirements. All of those are minimums. Those are things best determined by the city staff. If that’s all that you had to do is figure out is if these people meet the minimums, we wouldn’t need the board. City staff could do that. We could send it right up to City Council. It’d be a waste to have this level of review. You do have discretion. There’s a separate requirement that these plans have to meet the larger goals for the city and I suggest that this one does not. Given that what I’ve told you. Given hopefully what some of the other neighbors will tell you. Now you’re basically here to provide reasonable limits. That’s what you have to do. You do have power here. You’re not powerless to come out and take a look at this plan and see what it’s going to do. Take a look at those trees. Take a look at Ken Lang’s property where the trees are staying up. You’re not powerless to come out to look at the surrounding homes and see that these aren’t going to fit. That the spacing doesn’t match. That these things are stacked in here. That we’re trying to turn an older neighborhood into a cookie cutter neighborhood. You’re not powerless to come out and see that these aren’t just dots on a plan. That they’re trees that are going to be cut down. You’re not powerless to come out and see how these additional houses are going to cause added runoff into the wetland. That doesn’t show up on the plat that you’ve been provided. And you’re not powerless to push this project back so that you have time to do that. There’s an overlap problem here. It’s been recognized. You can use that to give yourself a chance to figure out what this project is and what it will do and whether it makes sense. And I hope that you truly do understand that you do have this power. I know that you know that approval of the current plan is not the right thing to do, and I hope that some of my neighbors will come up and help explain further why it’s not the right thing to do. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Okay, seeing no one else come forward, we’ll close the public meeting on this issue and we will bring it back to the council for deliberation. Kurt? Papke: No. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: Well…I think one of the comments was made about everything is at minimums on there. It looks like lot sizes are above minimums. …above minimums. My question on the trees out there, I think the applicant answered on the grading issue. If they custom grade each lot, they don’t have to go in there and mow all these trees down right away until they get a custom builder Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 14 to design something on that site. Which I believe is the plan for there. Yeah, it’s another one of the new developments in the middle of the neighborhood again, which we’ve been seeing more and more of. It’s all that’s left out there. You know staff does spend a lot of time with the applicant directly, and you don’t have a lot of time to bring it up here to argue your points on here. The comment about how much can we do up here? It is our job to see does this fit? Is it in the guidelines? And this seems, in my opinion it seems to be in the guidelines of meeting all the setbacks… That’s it for me. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Yeah, just in regards to the grading and what they’re calling tree preservation plan. It isn’t clear to me which trees are being saved. I mean there are, as the audience members aid, there are a number of dots on here but it does look like they are saving a number, or attempting to save a number of the trees. Is that a fair statement? Particularly it looks like you know 30 inch oak, 26 inch oak, 24 inch oak, 22 inch oak. On the south end of, you know Josh maybe you can sort of point out what’s there. There will definitely be some that come out but. Undestad: …if they custom grade the lots… Keefe: Right. Metzer: I believe anything outside of the dashed lines here will be saved. The City Forester is also requiring that 19 trees be planted in replacement of the trees that are being removed. City ordinance requires a minimum canopy coverage per lot on residential properties and determined on the amount of trees that are being removed, City Forester determined that 19 trees planted over the development is sufficient. Undestad: Josh real quick on the canopy coverage on there. We’re losing 1,089 square feet of canopy coverage on this? Generous: If I may, that’s just a way to calculate based on the area of canopy. You have to remember the trees. It was developed in the early to mid 90’s. It’s just a way to enumerate it. Undestad: You’re taking out one big tree that has 3,000 square feet. Generous: Yeah, well we use that 3,000 square feet of area and then you divide that by 1,089 to tell you how many trees to replace that one tree there. That’s right now. Now in the future when they come in to custom grade the lots, they take out trees that they’re supposed to preserve, then there’s a 2 to 1 replacement and that can be based on caliper inches so. And that could get, if they exceed what they’re supposed to, you could get quite a few trees. Keefe: The way I look at this, it looks like a 26 inch maple would come down…probably a 36 inch white pine. It looks like it would come down. And it looks like, and a 26 inch maple. So you’ve got the 3 that are kind of towards the middle there, but what would be saved is a 30 inch oak, 24 inch oak, 22 inch oak. 26 inch oak. 20 inch spruce. Is that what that is? 20 inch spruce. So at least from what I can tell in terms of the really large significant trees, yes. You are going Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 15 to lose 2-3. But actually there’s going to be an effort to save the both of them, at least from what I can tell on the plan. In terms of the lot size there, and they do exceed the minimum and yes they’ll definitely be somewhat different if all of the lots adjacent to it are 1 plus acre lots. We’re going to be going to smaller lot sizes. It does meet the ordinance so… McDonald: Deborah. Zorn: Bob and Josh, to what extent is the neighborhood sized lots, how were they considered against the ordinance? In this neighborhood it seems that the average seems to be around at least an acre and often times people move to a community, a neighborhood because of the lot size. And I can see why their neighbors that were quite concerned that this is really just changing the feel of the neighborhood. Metzer: Technically the reason they’re permitted to subdivide to lower lots than surrounding properties happen to be, you know it’s zoned single family residential. Minimum lot size 15,000 square feet. It’s land use designation is residential low density. 1.2 to 4 units per acre. It’s, they’re permitted the right to subdivide down to, so if they meet the minimum requirements as said, you know staff recommends approval. Zorn: So as you’re working with the developer, do you ask them to take into consideration characteristics of the neighborhood? Or do you simply advise them to seek the minimum? Generous: We do work with them. Actually they came in with 5 lots and so we did talk them down into the 4 lots. Unfortunately the zoning ordinance doesn’t permit that per se. It gives you the standards. You try to build it in. We look more from health safety standards. Is the drainage going to work? Are they going to create, over shadowing, over dominance on the neighboring properties with this development. If you look just to the west across Forest, you have same lot size. Probably smaller lots in there within this proposed development so. Over time yes, people who bought a long time ago, that’s the way their land was split up. It has, they retire or they have the same rights to come in through the process and if they comply with the ordinance, you can’t stop them. Unless you purchase the property. Zorn: Okay, thanks. No other comments. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: I think the developer has actually done a pretty good job. I don’t think we’ve seen one in a while that’s had these dotted lines showing the saved tree area. This is actually a pretty nicely drawn up plan, although it is somewhat ambiguous as to which ones will be saved and which ones will be cut down. Some of them are obvious that they’re going to go but would have been nice to have a table or something in here so we know exactly which ones stay and which ones go. It’s unfortunate that we’re going to lose another old house in the community. Unfortunately unless it’s registered historical landmark, there’s nothing much the Planning Commission can do about it so, it’s a pity but that’s the way it goes so I think this one seems to meet all the conditions. It really doesn’t border on the, any of the setbacks or anything like that. I think it’s a reasonable plan. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 16 McDonald: I guess the only comments I have is, I want to address the e-mail that was sent to us and also your comments about what powers we actually have and what we can actually do. You brought up the example of the home within this neighborhood that we went over about a month and a half ago. It really comes down to individual property rights. We can only look at certain limits and say that you can’t go below these minimums. That is the only thing that we can really do as far as controlling how you use your land. Ordinance for nuisances and those types of things. Other than that, everyone within this neighborhood has the right, if they can meet the zoning requirements, to subdivide their land and you will probably see more of this. This is not the first one of these that we have seen. We’re seeing them in most of the older sections of Chanhassen because when it was first put together the lot sizes were quite large and now what’s happening is, as people retire, that becomes their more or less savings account and they want to cash in. They have the right to do that as long as they meet certain requirements. We cannot just arbitrarily as a Planning Commission stop a project such as this unless it does not meet the requirements that we have within the city ordinances. So we cannot just stop things in order for us to look at it and determine how does it fit within a neighborhood. The ordinances are not built around that. The ordinances are built lots and lot sizes and setbacks and those types of issues that at least within a community it stops someone from coming in and chopping these things up into say triple the size you have here. There are minimums you have to meet. That is all we can oversee in this. Our role is not exactly a rubber stamp as you would maybe think because we end up voting for this. Part of this is the public meeting. This is the public’s opportunity to come forward and also question the judgment of staff. Staff comes to us and what the report tells us is, based upon city ordinances, this is what’s met. These are the problems we’re having or you know these are the concessions that are being made in this particular project. It was not an easy decision for this commission to agree to tear down the house that I think goes back to like 1820 or something, but as Kurt said, it’s not our property. It is not on any kind of a register or rolls or anything such as that. It belonged to an individual and he had the right to do with his property as he wished as long as he met the conditions of city ordinances. It’s the same situation here. What a developer has brought to us is a plan that is compliant with city ordinances. It meets the requirements. And I’m afraid we do not have a lot of discretion to stop that plan. If you feel strongly that this is wrong, then the next step is to go to City Council which at that point they have the wherewithal to change or to recommend and make changes to these plans. All we can do is go by what the ordinance says. And I think with that, then we’ll bring it back. Anyone want to give me a recommendation on this? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped Received November 4, 2005, subject to conditions 1 through 22. McDonald: Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 17 shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped “Received November 4, 2005”, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. 2. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as preserved that are removed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 3. The water and sanitary hook-ups for lot 2 must be moved to the driveway in order to preserve the 12” maple. 4. The developer must obtain all permits necessary to remove the existing homes. 5. The grading plan must be revised as follows: a. All proposed contours must tie in to existing contours, particularly the 992’, 990’ and 988’ contours on the west side of Lot 1; and the 996’, 994’ and 992’ contours on the east side of Lot 3. b. Staff recommends that the low floor elevations for Lots 1 and 2 be lowered one foot to achieve an 8 foot walkout. Staff recommends that steps be installed in the garage on Lots 3 and 4 to achieve an 8 foot walkout. c. A drainage breakpoint elevation must be shown northeast of the building pad corner on Lot 3. 6. Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall events. 7. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The developer must acquire a Work in Right of Way Permit from the Engineering Department before commencing work in the right of way and shall submit a financial security to ensure that Orchard Lane and Forest Avenue are properly restored after the services have been installed. 10. The developer shall pay the $29,298.00 trunk and lateral water and sewer fees in cash with the final plat or assess them to the lots within the proposed development. The lateral connection charges can be assessed at 8% for 8 years. The trunk hookup charges can be assessed at 8% for 4 years. 11. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 18 12. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA and the Watershed District. 13. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 14. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 15. The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s). 16. The plans shall be revised to expand the drainage and utility easement in a straight line from the point where the 978 elevation intersects the east lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, to where the 978 elevation intersects the 20’ sanitary sewer easement at the southern edge of Lot 4, Block 1. Standard drainage & utility easements shall be dedicated in all other locations. 17. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.02 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $2,208; the water quantity fees are approximately $5,464. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $7,672. 18. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Orchard Green pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total $16,000 (4 lots x $4,000). 19. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 20. Provide a cleanout on the sewer service for Lot 3. 21. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 19 22. The applicant shall resolve all property line disputes through legal verification with Carver County prior to Final Plat submittal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK TWIN HOMES: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 101. APPLICANT MARTIN SCHUTROP, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-36. Public Present: Name Address Patty & Craig Mullen Chanhassen Heather & Derek Benson Chanhassen Martin Schutrop Chanhassen Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Who wants to start? Papke: I’ll start. First I’ll start with an easy one. Middle of page 4, right above the development design standards. Additionally the development provides an integrated, and integrated what? Okay, I’ll let you think on that one a little bit. Next one. The construction entrance, if I understand things correctly, and maybe you can point out on a drawing exactly where it is, looks to be pretty close to the current 3 way stop with 101 and Lyman. Is that correct? Generous: Yes. Papke: So, are you anticipating any traffic problems with that? I mean it just, people have been driving through there for a long time and they’re not used to seeing people turn in at that spot. You know I understand from one perspective that’s where you want them, it will kind of turn into a 4 way stop. Is that the intent there? Oehme: I’m sorry, on Lyman? Papke: Yeah, the construction entrance where it intersects Lyman, that will basically take the current 101 and Lyman intersection from a 3 way to, it will kind of make it into a 4 way stop. Is it directly in line with the existing 101 or slightly off set or? Oehme: Yeah, actually in conjunction with the 212 project, that whole intersection’s going to be shifted over approximately I think 60 feet from it’s current center line alignment. There will be Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 20 turn lanes, both the left and right turn lanes associated with this development put in. There will not be a stop condition there at all. Papke: Okay, so you’re suggesting that by the time construction starts on this, 101 will already be moved? Oehme: Well next year 101, well Lyman Boulevard will be upgraded next year already. Under construction. They’re building the bridge at Lyman currently right now and Lyman Boulevard will be. Papke: And that project is behind schedule from the last thing we saw in the newspapers. I’m just concerned there’s going to be some confusion with that entrance there that’s all. It just, you know depending upon when they start. Oehme: That’s fine. We could maybe entertain a condition that access from Lyman be put in by MnDot prior to any you know development building permits or something like that. Papke: Last, these buildings are pretty tightly packed, particularly along the southern border here and they’re pretty much in a dead line. The units seem to be, especially on the southern side are kind of packed in and they’re pretty much along a line here. There doesn’t seem to be much visual variation with the fronts of these things. I’m just concerned you’re going to be driving up on 101. You’re going to look out to the left and you’re just going to see this solid row of these twin homes with zero space inbetween them with no variation. And maybe the developer can address some of the architectural variety here but just from a preliminary plat or conceptual plat perspective, this just looks like a solid wall of townhomes. Generous: Yeah, well it will look like. Papke: A solid wall of townhomes. Generous: Well you could have a solid wall of houses in there. The same set-up. These twin homes give the appearance of single family homes. That’s part of the nice transition that they provide. They’re not 6 units in a row or. Papke: Right. Right. Generous: Some of the architectural detailing they’re providing is really internally. You see where they have the garages facing each other rather than the street. That’s one of the architectural detail and that’s part of their integrated development design. Papke: Ah, that’s the, okay. Okay. Generous: Started to talk about it and didn’t continue that thought on it but they’re looking at, instead of welcome to my garage where every house having the garage facing forward, we have these units that have their garages to the side or the entrances to the garages to the side so they share the common driveway, and again that’s part of the reason why there’s a variance requested. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 21 Actually there’s two of them. One was because they’re sharing that driveway and technically it becomes a private street and so we have to give them a variance to do that, but we believe it’s integral to the design of the entire project to give this alternation and roofs. Visual character. Papke: Okay. Okay, well I think I’ll let the developer. Generous: And this, it does sort of stagger up so there is variation. Papke: Okay. Zorn: Two quick questions Bob. On the color scheme, is that literally color scheme or is that related to architectural design? I’m just thinking of some townhomes that are in my neighborhood that they are all the same color but they have different stone on the front. Generous: No, these will have different colors and we’re looking at probably a green and maybe a yellow and I can’t remember the third one. A tan or gray. Again maybe the applicant would be better, because he’s also the builder which is unique for a lot of developments we see where you have a developer and then you have the builders come in separately. Zorn: And can you give me an example, you mentioned the Outlot B may be dedicated to the city and it would be permanent open space. …an example of an identical permanent space be in our city right now? Generous: You know 41 and West 78th Street on the north side there’s those townhouse projects. Highlands on Bluff Creek is the name. The wooded land on the north side of the project was provided in an outlot and dedicated to the city. Another example is the, there’s two outlots north of the Kwik Trip on the north side of West 78th Street. With the Kwik Trip property we got all the land adjacent on the north side of West 78th up to the creek, and then with the development of the four houses to the north of that, we got the north side of the creek there, so that became city property and we’ll maintain it as permanent open space and that wildlife corridor as part of the Bluff Creek overlay district. Zorn: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Dan? Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got some. The entrance to the cul-de-sac is, did I hear turn off lanes into the street or are there going to be turn lanes for this? Oehme: Correct. Keefe: Okay. What is the speed limit on Lyman? It’s 50 isn’t it along there or is it slowed up? Oehme: It’s 45 or 50. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 22 Keefe: Yeah. Okay, and what is the distance from the entrance there to the corner of 101 and where 101 is, you’re saying that 101’s going to move a little bit east from there, correct. Oehme: Correct. Keefe: The distance of the entrance on this road to, I mean I recall looking at something on Lyman a while back that we didn’t want to have the entrance onto Lyman. Oehme: MnDot and the County have looked at this access point and they have. Keefe: Okay…approval in terms of that access. Oehme: Well I mean MnDot will be putting the turn lanes under the 212 project. It will be providing that access point in this project, or under the 212 project. Keefe: Okay, and will this be across from, is this going to be a 4 way at? Oehme: Yeah. It will be 4 way into the new development to the north. Keefe: Okay. Into the new development, alright. The retaining wall to the west side, do we know what the height on that one is? It looks like they’ve got an 8 foot one on the south side. If it’s out there, I didn’t see any markings on. Do you see one? Zorn: Yeah. Keefe: I didn’t see it on the plans at all. And then the depth of the flat part in the back of these town homes, I mean you’ve got a pretty steep grade on the south end which you know goes into Bluff Creek. You’re looking at 10 feet off the back of these town homes til you start going up. Generous: Basically you’re looking at a 20 foot area. Keefe: Okay. Generous: Actually the individual, while the development will put in some retaining walls, if a unit owner would come in later and decide that they want a little more area, it’s possible they could add additional short retaining walls to make, give them a little more room in their rear yard. There is. Keefe: So we could go down the hill and… Generous: Yeah, go down the hill. Keefe: Terrace it or something. Generous: Exactly. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 23 Keefe: Because it’s pretty, I mean you’re looking at a drop off from what, 910 down to. Generous: You may want to ask the developer about… Keefe: It’s probably 15, yeah. Generous: …I’m not sure that they’re the type of people that want all that. Keefe: Yeah, okay. How does this, I didn’t see sidewalks. Well I guess there was a request for a sidewalk on one side of the street. Generous: Yeah, we require one on the south side of the street. Keefe: Where does that tie into in terms of, you know where’s the future. Generous: There’s a trail on Lyman on the north side. Keefe: On the north side, so they would need to cross the. Generous: Yeah, at that intersection that’s going to be created. Keefe: Okay, and is that going to be a signalized intersection do you know at this intersection or is it only at 101? Oehme: It’s just at 101. Keefe: So how are they going get across at 50 miles an hour speed limit? Generous: Carefully. Keefe: Okay. And the park that services this is Bandimere, is that correct? Generous: That’s correct. Keefe: And is there any cross now to, in that area? How would they get from here to Bandimere? Generous: They would go up to 101 and then there’s a trail. Keefe: On the east side of 101, is that what the proposal is on the…trail on the east side? Oehme: Yeah, the trail will remain on the east side. Keefe: Okay. Alright. The private street, private streets, I presume that’s an association maintained? Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 24 Generous: It would just be for the 2 units… Keefe: Okay. Generous: It’s the way that we have the garages that are facing each other rather than off of the street. That will be a private street to access into them and it’s on the 3, well the 6 units but 3 driveways. Keefe: The ones on the north side? Generous: Well they’re all on the south side, but it’d be Lots 8 and 9, 12 and 13, and 16 and 17. Keefe: Okay. Generous: So then if you look at the elevations, then you don’t have every garage pointing out towards the front. Keefe: So how do they do that? Do they tie those units together with a maintenance plan or is it an association would show that? Generous: No, we have for each of those lots we have a cross access and maintenance agreement that’s recorded as part of the subdivision. Keefe: Alright, that’s it. Papke: Mr. Chair, can I follow up? I’d just like to follow up on one question that Commissioner Keefe brought up. So just to make sure I understand for a child riding his or her bike to Bandimere Park, they have to cross Lyman Boulevard to get to the north side here without a stop sign. Then they have to go down to 101 and cross Lyman a second time and then pick up the trail on the east side. So there’s two crosses of Lyman that have to happen. Keefe: Three. It’s Lyman twice and 101. Papke: Yeah, three street crossings but Lyman twice with no forward progress if you will. Generous: Yeah, you know as part of this looking should we make them come out to 101 there but then they’re at mid block and there’s no crossing there either. Papke: Which is what the kids will do. Keefe: Well eventually I wonder if there should be a sidewalk or something along the east side of this up to the corner of 101 and Lyman. Papke: This just seems, it seems problematic. You know exactly what the kids are going to do with that cul-de-sac backing right up to 101 there. They’re just going to ride their bike right across that little strip. They’re going to be right on 101. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 25 Generous: The only good thing is they will have a median that they can stop in. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: There’s nothing farther down 101 to stop at. McDonald: Is that it? This thing about the path. I remember having this discussion before about this area, especially about the path being on the east side of 101 and I’m having a problem remembering how this is all going to be realigned because we’ve talked about this once before because now with the new 212 coming down, that cuts this neighborhood off from the one that currently exists, and I remember we had discussions about how these trails were all going to inter connect and there was some discussion about one of the overpasses down at this end. I thought we were looking at a trail there, and some kind of a system within here. Can you help me? I mean is this just a void as far as the trails and everything or was this something that wasn’t considered at the time when we were looking at this area before? Generous: If I can remember correctly. They have to get to the north side of Lyman to get into my trail system and that will take them east and west and if you go west there will be a trail that they can connect onto. Once they go over one, or I think it’s over 212 they’ll be able to connect into the trail system and that Chanhassen Hills neighborhood, which they can go back or they can go up 101 where there will be a trail on the east side of the road. McDonald: And is this the correct alignment for the new 101 to the east of this? Is that where the new 101’s also going to be? Generous: Yes. McDonald: Okay. Because you’re looking at significant upgrades for 101. That’s no longer going to be a back road’s street anymore. There’s going to be a lot of traffic on that. Undestad: Is there any way of getting a sidewalk or a trail on the north side of this project to go over that intersection? At least it keeps you from crossing Lyman two times. Generous: I don’t know what the widths on, if they’re anticipating a crosswalk on the south side of Lyman at 101. I’m not sure what MnDot’s intentions are for there. McDonald: And who’s controlling all of that? Is that MnDot is the one who will control trails or the whole road system through there? Oehme: Well I think the City requested that the trails be installed in these areas. The city wouldn’t be paying for them. They wouldn’t be put in at this time. So I think the parks department you know recommended the locations and how all the access points would be taken care of. At the intersection of 101 and Lyman I do believe there will be pedestrian crosswalks at all 4 legs of that intersection there. So if a sidewalk or a trail could potentially be installed, I would believe that the south side of Lyman or maybe the west side of 101. We really just need Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 26 to take a look at the topography and the setbacks and how that can fit into the existing right-of- way to see if it works. McDonald: Is there any possibility of using… Bandimere Park probably easier. Keefe: They’d be coming off the cul-de-sac…because that’s going to be a signalized intersection right? So that’s the place on the east side of Unit 6. McDonald: I think that that’d be a good suggestion to follow up on. Now the next question I’ve got, and this is a little bit of an education on my part but for twin homes, the lot size area can be less than for a single family? Generous: Yes. McDonald: Okay. And then as part of this compromise you’re looking at getting 25% coverage throughout the development. I think for most lots that sounds fair and reasonable but what are we going to do if Lot 18 or Lot 7 or you know any of these others with, you know in excess of roughly 10,000 come back and want to have more things on their lots. They’re probably still going to be within the compliance. What are we going to do to enforce the coverage? I mean you’ve got maximum site coverage per lot that on those lots you could easily exceed the 3,400 square feet. Generous: Well then they would need to come in for a variance. McDonald: But they shouldn’t need a variance is my point because of the size of the lot. I mean what these are based upon is roughly a 7,000 square foot area and you’ve got 4 lots there. 21,000, 18,000. I mean they could come back and exceed the 3,400 and still be within the 25%. Generous: Theoretically yes. We could do that. I was trying to figure out a mechanism that was easily administrative. McDonald: Okay. I just see that as being a potential problem because you know we’re going to get a homeowner that’s going to come back with that size walk and they’re going to want to put something, a swimming pool, a sport court, you know something such as that and they would still meet our variances but they would go beyond what it is that you’ve negotiated here. Okay, that’s the only comments I’ve really got for staff. Do we have an applicant to come forward and present to us? Martin Schutrop: Good evening Planning Commission. My name is Martin Schutrop. I live at 540 Lakota Lane in Chanhassen and I’m here to answer your questions about the proposed development. If you have any questions. I think you addressed the line and I, you know we have, we worked very closely with the staff trying to come up with a plan for this site because there were so many restrictions with the overlay district and the wetland and then we had to deal with the pipeline you know which took up a big chunk of this land so there’s so little useable land on this acreage. But we had to try to maximize the amount of units that we could get in there to make it affordable, and being a Chanhassen resident I mean there is no affordable Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 27 housing in Chanhassen anymore. I mean it’s, everything that’s single family, $600,000, $800,000 single family so there’s no way to do that unless you find some of these and we’ve tried different street configurations and none of them fit within the restrictions that we had to deal with. So that’s why we came up with the plan of alternating the garages and coming up with different color schemes that were just variate them and like you I drive by that site 5 times a day. You know I don’t want to drive by it and have an eyesore either so that’s, our intention is to make it very aesthetically pleasing when you drive by it and also to conform with what’s going to be there in the future. I mean if you look at what’s proposed for the north side of Lyman, it’s going to be a lot of commercial properties over there so, I think this will actually fit better than single family homes on this site of course, but so that’s what we’re proposing and if you have any questions I can answer those. Papke: Back to that issue of kind of a linear appearance. Are your, your twin home plans, do you have any gables or any kind of variation on the south side of those, of Units 7 through 18 there that would prevent this from looking like a wall. Martin Schutrop: Well I don’t think it will look like a wall unless you stand in one spot and look down at it. As you drive by and they’re all going to be different heights because the road’s actually going to come down slightly I think towards the east, and the roof lines are going to be varied. They’re going to vary between the garages. We’re going to switch them around and have one garage like Bob was saying. You know one end load, one end load. Try to vary those to make them look more single family residential. So our intention is we’re not going to build something that’s going to look lousy so we can’t sell the units. Our market is to try to keep these under $500,000, which is hard in this market. So that’s what we’re trying to do with a lot of nice amenities and a lot of nice exteriors and that’s why we’re using different materials on the outside of the units. We’re not going to have them all the same unit. All the same color. All the same stone. They’re going to, we’re going to try to vary it a little so as you look down there’s going to be some variation just because of that. Papke: Okay. You heard the discussion about the trail access. What are your feelings about providing some kind of trail, foot path, whatever access to that southwest corner of Lyman and 101? However you could solve it. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I think the end of the cul-de-sac is a natural way to come up to Lyman and have them cross there. Anything else that brings you farther south on 101 is going to be problematic anyway. And as far as having people cross right at the cul-de-sac, I think we’re planning on putting quite a bit of tree barrier in there so that won’t be an issue, and there’s going to be a berm there too so. Papke: A kid on a mountain bike, that’s just a challenge. Martin Schutrop: Well, and I think a lot of these units are probably going to be occupied by more empty nester type people. There won’t be a lot of, I don’t see this as a development where there will be a lot of children. I see it more as an empty nester type development. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 28 Papke: And they’ll certainly want to access that walking trail down to Bandimere Park. I mean that trail is very heavily used along that so. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I see this, I agree totally. Papke: So you’d be receptive to an amendment to a condition here to provide that kind of trail? Martin Schutrop: Yeah, just a walking path to that corner. Papke: Okay. Keefe: You mentioned berming and I kind of, I didn’t see any on the grading plan. Give me a sense on where you’re going to berm and what your screening is. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, the screening will be basically on the north side where the parkland is in line, there’ll be a small berm. Kind of an overlay, as long as we don’t cover the berm line, or the pipe line. Yeah, we can actually go into that easement and berm it as long as we don’t cover it. Keefe: So what type of elevation can you get? Martin Schutrop: I think it’s going to be probably 4 feet. You know 3 or 4, and then larger trees. We tried to get Magellan to move the pipeline to the north side but they don’t want to spend the money so. Keefe: Yeah, how about on the east side? Martin Schutrop: There’ll be a tree berm and some smaller berms on that side. I mean we can’t go too high because of the drainage issues. We don’t want that to drain into the units so. Keefe: On the south side you’ve got a fairly significant drop off onto the wetland area. What is the distance you’re looking at from the back of these units? Are they going to have patios off the back? Martin Schutrop: Well they probably won’t have patios. I mean we propose more of a retaining walls for bigger back yards. I mean the city came back and said they wanted less. They would rather have the grade just go down to the wetland naturally rather than have retaining walls. So we’re proposing at least 20 to 25 feet behind each unit being fairly level and then gradually tapering down. Keefe: And then the retaining walls you’re proposing are what, with some sort of boulder. Martin Schutrop: They’ll be a boulder. They’ll be natural boulder retaining walls. We don’t put Keystones or timbers or anything. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 29 Keefe: Yeah, okay. The tie in, from your perspective where this ties in to Lyman and, you know in terms of sidewalk going in. I mean it’s nice to have a sidewalk go in there but are people going to go across there? …given what your market is. Any thoughts on that? Martin Schutrop: In the cul-de-sac you mean? Keefe: No, the other part. Martin Schutrop: Have a sidewalk go out to that. Keefe: Yeah, because I mean 50 miles an hour. Martin Schutrop: Well they’re going to be slowed down a bit coming to that intersection. Keefe: Right. Martin Schutrop: Because there’s going to be turn lanes, and I’m assuming that they’re not going to have 45 miles per hour speed limit all the way to that stop sign. They’re going to have to slow down at some point and transition to the other side of Lyman. So I don’t think they’re going to be driving that quickly. Keefe: That’s it. Thanks. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Just to follow up on Jerry’s question. You have an association or if somebody decided they wanted to need larger lots to put something in there. Martin Schutrop: Well that’s not going to be, I mean all the units are going to be fairly the same, all going to be the same size and the same units. There won’t be any kind of part of the association. You won’t be able to put a pool in or sport court and things like that. That’s going to be a restrictive covenants. Undestad: …problems. Martin Schutrop: Oh yeah, because I don’t think, most associations don’t want sport courts and pools, so as a part of that, we’re not proposing any, anything additional. If they’d like to add on a porch or a deck or something of that sort, they could do that. McDonald: Just to follow up on that then. What you’re saying is there will be an association covenants for all this and within that you’re going to maintain this 3,400 square feet maximum coverage. That that will be part of the covenant that anyone moves in with. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I guess that’s part of the PUD, right? Generous: It’s part of the zoning for that. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 30 Martin Schutrop: Yeah, the zoning. We really don’t have any say in that. Staff has dictated that to us. McDonald: I have no further questions. Martin Schutrop: And then the other thing too, the spacing between the units. We’re more than the minimum because we didn’t want, the minimum was 5 feet? Generous: 5 feet yeah. Martin Schutrop: 5 feet. I think we’re 9 feet. McDonald: Okay, so it’s 18 total from one side of the house to the other. What you’re talking about is from the house to the property line. Martin Schutrop: Yes. McDonald: Okay, so it’d be a total of 18 feet. Generous: No, the drawing it shows 4 ½ foot to the property line. Martin Schutrop: 9 foot total. Generous: And I was recommending a 5 foot setback, side property line so it’d be a 10 foot total. Martin Schutrop: But what I understand is that we could have went closer. Generous: Yeah we, well the design standards are part of the process. This is my attempt at drawing something. You could have proposed, the building code permits you to go to within 3 feet. And then the fire code kicks in and opening, protection and all that. So this is, right now what we’re proposing is a 5 foot side setback. If that doesn’t…get that revised. If you want to go to 4 ½ feet, that would be a change that would need to be done. McDonald: If no further questions then thank you. Martin Schutrop: At this point I will open up the meeting to the public. If anyone has comments or wish to ask questions, please come forward. Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. You were asking some questions about the landscaping and I heard, there was a, it doesn’t sound like there’s a solid landscape plan. I don’t know if you have one in front of you. But, you do? Just tree placement? Keefe: Retaining walls. There’s a total landscape. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 31 Deb Lloyd: Okay. I just want to remind you that PUD’s should have high quality design standards reflective of the architecture and the landscaping. In fact the code says they should reflect higher quality designs than found elsewhere in the community. And affordable housing is a component of this as well. I’m probably not really current with housing rates but $500,000 is like far from what I considerable affordable. I’d like to point out a deficiency in the staff report as well. Under setbacks on page 5, under interior public right-of-way. The 30 feet except Lots 1 and 2 which shall be 20 feet. There’s no variance findings in the report for that setback deviation. The variance finding would be a requirement in the report. So that was I don’t know, an oversight or over looked. There’s another error in the report as well. If you look on page 3 on the findings of fact, start with street width. Point 6. a, b, c, d then you have point 7, a, b, c and then you start variance findings, private street. 7 again, a, b, etc.. Something is not reading correctly and definitely the findings of fact and/or any documentation in the report supporting why you should have a different setback requirement for Lots 1 and 2 have not been discussed or written about. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Keefe: Want to address it sometime? Generous: Yes, as part of a PUD you establish the standards as part of the design standards so there are no variance findings for that. It would be the proposed design standards. The proposed, this is, the PUD is the zoning for the property so. Papke: To clarify…this is a preliminary plat so we see this one again, yes or no? Generous: You won’t see it again, no. Papke: Okay, so this is our last chance. Generous: Right. Papke: They’re doing both concept and preliminary at the same stage. Usually you get concept where they don’t have this much detail and then the preliminary comes in. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward and make a comment? Okay, seeing no one come forward, I’ll close the public meeting on this application and I’ll bring it back up to the commissioners. Why don’t we start with Mark. Undestad: Well I think overall it’s a nice fit up there in that corner. It is a tough site to work with. You’ve got a couple of main roads on both sides of you and wetlands on the other end there so. You know I like the idea the applicant’s willing to look at putting that sidewalk in and I know that will be an issue whether the people that live there use it or those who come to visit. They may want to find their way over to that park, so. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 32 Keefe: How do I deal with the variance? I mean in terms of no variance findings in the report. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that before. Generous: My contention is because it’s a PUD it’s not a variance. You’re establishing these standards. The setback as part of the design standards. Keefe: Okay, I see what you’re saying. Generous: Now I agree with the, you have to have the findings for the private street and the street width. Keefe: Right. So what are we doing right now? Generous: She is correct. 6 should be, Variance Findings (Private Street) and 7 is Variance Findings, Street Width. McDonald: Okay, just clarify where are you at? Generous: It’s in the attachment. It’s for private streets you have, there’s two criteria that you have for plan one that it meets these standards and also that it meets the variance standards. So it’s just labeling them. It’s page 3 of the findings of fact. Keefe: 6 Variance Findings street width is correct? Generous: The sixth variance finding should be private street. Keefe: And then the other one should be street width? Generous: Right. Keefe: And the numbering should be what? Generous: Well the numbering is fine. Keefe: Well it goes 6, 7 and then 7, 8. Should be 8, 9? Generous: Or you could make it d, e, f, g you know. Instead of saying 7 say e and then sub that a, b, c, d. Keefe: Okay. Generous: I can correct the numerations. Keefe: Yeah, if you will correct those. You know, just to revisit my comments. I generally support this plan. I think it’s, I think it’s a difficult corner and I think it certainly is the appropriate use for that corner. So I’ll leave it at that. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 33 Zorn: I guess I just had two discussion points, and I too think it’s a good plan. I have a concern with the closeness of the units and right now, just to clarify, that the units are going to be too close at 9 feet? Generous: Yes. Zorn: To the wetland. Generous: They had it at 4 ½ foot setback. That would not comply with the design standards that I drafted. Zorn: So would we need to add that as an amendment? Generous: Well you could change the design standards if you go to 4 ½ feet or change to 5 or you could go to 3. This is one step where your input is you know what you want to see there. Zorn: Okay, well I would say I’d want the minimum at least and I can make an amendment for it to be at 4 ½. So that would be my first comment. And second. Papke: It’s currently at 5 right? Generous: Yes. The drawing is at 4 ½. McDonald: Do you want to leave it at 4 ½? Zorn: No, no. I would not be in favor of leaving it as is. Yeah, correct. So making a recommendation that that needs to be addressed. And then in addition to the side lots discussion, making sure that there is access from the cul-de-sac to the sidewalk along the west side of 101. To put one in. The developer was open to. Papke: No, hook it in up here. That’s where the crossing is. There’s no crossing right there. There’s no sidewalk. Zorn: The discussion was to add sidewalk along. Papke: Or something up to that. Zorn: Okay, so that would complete my in favor of adding then. McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: Nothing to add. McDonald: I guess at that point, the only comments I have is that, I think this is a difficult corner. You come up with a fairly good use for it. My concerns again are the task. I think Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 34 people need access to points along through here but we’ve had this discussion before about this particular area. I understand some of the restrictions but if we’re going to do developments such as this, I think we have to solve that problem. The issues about the intersection, I have to say I’m confused. I agree that’s going to be a 4 way stop. I don’t see where that can be a pedestrian crossing but I think you’ve got to come up with something there. You’ve got a problem there. I’m not sure it’s the developer’s problem. It’s probably city’s more than his but I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to add a path over to the east side because that will help to alleviate some of the problems we’re coming up with. Other than that, that’s all the comments I really have. And at this point I guess I would ask for a motion. Papke: Alright, I make a motion that the, A, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment incorporating the property into the current MUSA. B, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept and preliminary PUD rezoning the property from A2 to PUD-R, Residential, incorporating the development design standards contained in this staff report. And C, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, 2 outlots and right-of-way for public streets with variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access Lots 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17. Plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated October 28, 2005, subject to conditions 1 through 46 as stated in the staff report. I’d like to add two additional conditions. I’d like to add condition number 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest corner of 101 and Lyman. Condition number 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements. And then motion D, the Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to conditions 1 and 2 as listed in the staff report. McDonald: Okay, do I have a second? Keefe: Just a brief amendment to your first additional amendment which would be trail access from the bubble of the cul-de-sac to the southwest corner. Papke: …go to the bubble or just say provide an access to the southwest corner. McDonald: Well first of all we have to vote on what you proposed and if you want to propose a friendly amendment or an adversarial amendment, then you have to bring that forward. Keefe: Yeah, right. McDonald: I believe that’s the way it has to go. We have to vote on it. Generous: I think the Robert’s Rules of Order you actually have to move the amendment first and then you move the rest. Papke: If you remove it, you don’t go. Keefe: I’m willing to drop that. Understand your argument. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 35 McDonald: Then do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating the property in the current Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development rezoning the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets with a variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access lots 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated October 28, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk connection on the south side of the street from the internal street cul-de-sac to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard shall be provided. 2. The development shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 3. Applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 84 trees. At least one tree is required in each front yard. Common areas must be sodded and provided with irrigation. Native plantings will be required along the southern edge of the development parallel to the wetland. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan planting list. 4. Applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the bufferyards. 5. 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. 6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 36 8. 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 Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 9. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and the new proposed road, and one in the area of Lot 13/14. 12. A minimum 16.5 foot buffer strip shall be maintained from the delineated edge of the wetland. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 13. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over all of Outlot B. The developer may dedicate Outlot B to the City. 14. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 15. All structures shall meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary of the Bluff Creek Overlay District as required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading shall occur within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. The plans shall be revised to eliminate grading within 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. 16. The plans shall be revised to include the City of Chanhassen’s standard detail 5300 for silt fence. Type 2 silt fence shall be used along the southern grading limits and at the normal water level of the pond. Type 1 silt fence shall be used elsewhere. Silt fence shall be installed around the storm water pond at the pond’s normal water level until surrounding areas have adequate vegetative erosion control established. 17. The plans shall be revised to include City of Chanhassen standard detail 5302A for Wimco or similar catch basin inlet protection. 18. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 37 These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 19. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City, Carver County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements. 20. A SWPPP should be developed by Ryan Engineering for the site which would encompass an erosion and sediment control plan. The SWPPP is needed prior to applying for the NPDES permit. 21. Erosion control blanket is needed for the slopes NE of lot 18 and the southern slopes from about the 912 / 910 proposed contours to the bottom of the slope within 14 days of final grade. 22. Energy dissipation at the FES inlet to the permanent storm water pond is needed. A detail is needed. 23. The proposed storm water basin must be used as a temporary sediment trap during construction and must be excavated in the initial construction phases of the development. A temporary diversion berm should be constructed to divert runoff from lots 18 to 11 into the pond. This should be included in the SWPPP. 24. A temporary outlet and / or a temporary stabilized EOF for the temporary basin is needed. 25. Inlet controls are needed for the CB’s within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed; Chanhassen city specifications are Wimco type inlet control or equal. 26. The silt fence as proposed is running up and down the slope along the west and east boundaries of the site. The silt fence must be installed with J-hooks to effectively provide sediment control and not concentrate runoff to the south. 27. A concrete washout area is needed in the SWPPP; silt fence, sump area and rock driveway should be used and could be located in Outlot A. 28. A permanent outlet structure is needed for the permanent storm water basin in the southwest corner of the pond. Detail is needed. 29. A stable emergency over flow (EOF) is needed for the permanent storm water basin. Riprap or a turf reinforcement mate (TRM) could be used and specifications and detail area needed. 30. The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on BMPs as needed or required. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 38 31. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $21,857. 32. The final plans must include the following revisions: a. Existing contours within 100 feet of the proposed development must be shown on the plan. b. Note the top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls. c. Note the location and elevation of the emergency overflow on the east end of the cul de sac. d. A full-size drainage area map must be submitted. e. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk must be constructed on one side of the street. f. Show the proposed street light layout. g. A stop sign must be installed at the intersection at Lyman Boulevard. h. All plan sheets must be signed by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 33. If import or export of material is required for the development of this property, the applicant must submit a detailed haul route to the City. 34. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed/abandoned. 35. The developer must field verify the sewer and watermain stub locations and elevations. If the stubs have not been installed the developer shall directional bore the utilities under Lyman Boulevard. All costs and permits associated with this work would be the developer’s responsibility. 36. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat and shall include all required information. 37. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 38. 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 (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Department of Health, MCES, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 39. Access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the benefiting properties for the private streets. 40. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 39 Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project. 41. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Existing utilities and on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance applicable regulations. 42. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 43. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and cannot be constructed until a building permit is obtained. 44. The applicant shall create a Homeowners Association to take responsibility of the retaining walls and maintain them. 45. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 46. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official.” 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest corner of 101 and Lyman. 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. No grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor boundary. 2. All structures must meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 40 PUBLIC HEARING: STONEFIELD: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF, SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 30 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 LYMAN BOULEVARD, APPLICANT PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-37. Public Present: Name Address Dave Hess 8682 Flamingo Drive Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Papke: I’ll start. Between the amendments to the city code we changed tonight and the huge number of conditions in here, I don’t think I followed how we’re handling the minimum 90 foot. We just amended the city, the ordinances tonight to go from a 90 foot lot width at frontage, correct? Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: And there are lots in the proposal here that do not meet that, correct? Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: And point me to the condition that makes these lots satisfy that or is there no such condition right now? Al-Jaff: There’s no such condition right now. At the time when final plat appears before the city, if they meet current ordinance requirements. Papke: Then there’s no issue. Al-Jaff: Then there is no issue. If the ordinances that you adopted were approved by the City Council and published, then that becomes the new ordinance that they need to meet, and the final plat would have to be adjusted accordingly. Papke: Just to minimize confusion, would there be any legal issues if we just added a condition to stipulate 90 foot lot widths tonight so that we don’t have to re-visit this or what are. Al-Jaff: Your, the ordinance today. Papke: Yes, we have to. We have to follow the ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 41 Al-Jaff: Correct. Papke: Dang. That makes it very confusing. Al-Jaff: The setback from the pipeline is a zoning setback. That is something that they would need to comply with, whether everything gets approved today or a month from now. They would have to comply with that. Papke: I just have one other, it’s probably pretty trivial question. On page 6 there was a mention of use of shredded wood should be considered. Okay. For what and again I didn’t see anything in the conditions to stipulate that. I mean it’s a nice wishful thinking statement but what do we do with that? What are you really proposing there? But then it starts talking about site exit pads so are we talking, what are we actually considering the shredded wood for use on? You know over what areas? You know I understand it’s erosion control but where are you proposing to put it and where is it enforced within the conditions? Or is it not? Are you just suggesting that that’s something we should chat about? Al-Jaff: Just a suggestion. And it’s over…and I will make sure that I work with Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator to clarify this further before it get to City Council. Papke: Okay. Zorn: Sharmeen, I’ve got a question in regards to the wetland. There are 6 that are identified. Can you just remind me and everyone here this evening what incidental refers to. 5 of the 6 are considered incidental and are exempt. Al-Jaff: Those are man made ponds. For instance there is an existing pond right now in this area. That’s a storm pond. It’s man made. Therefore it does not, it’s exempt. Zorn: Okay, so if someone thinks that it’s not a true wetland, even though it likely looks like a nice prairie wetland right now that…protected. Al-Jaff: Often when you look at ditches along highways you’ll see cattails in them. Zorn: Okay. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Keeping on the water theme. Can you just sort of describe, I mean we’ve got a lot of steep grades on this property. You even indicate in your report historical problems with erosion on this property. Can you just kind of give us an overview of how the water flows and what the water management plan is. Before I get into specifics I’d like to kind of. Al-Jaff: Sure. One of the problems that we have encountered deals with water and erosion problems in this area. One of the projects that are currently being undertaken by the city and going back to our Water Resource Coordinator, Lori Haak, she is working to try and expand this Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 42 pond. Stabilize grades. Minimize erosion. Currently, if you…there is a valley in this area. With the grading of this site, all of these grades will be changed and water redirected to flow into, this will become a regional pond. Keefe: Even the southern end? Al-Jaff: The southern end. Keefe: Where we’ve got real steep grades. Al-Jaff: The southern end will be maintained to the west. There is a swale that’s being created along the southern portion of the site. And it should maintain the natural drainage pattern. Keefe: Currently the properties to the east, are they large lot or are they commercial or what is it? Al-Jaff: Property to the west? Keefe: East…and then to the west is, is it ag to the west side? Al-Jaff: We have city park out here. And then, well you have large lot in this area. Keefe: Okay, so in terms of where we’re directing the water to get out, to drain off this property, it’s going to be going into the large pond that is going to be expanded potentially to the northeast? Al-Jaff: Majority of the water will be draining in that direction. Keefe: Then on the southern end it drains into, will drain into the adjacent property or where does that go? Al-Jaff: It will be, there is a ditch that is being created, a swale that’s being created. Keefe: In terms of the runoff. Undestad: Does that take it down to that storm drain down here? That private storm? Al-Jaff: Can the engineer answer the question regarding the drainage pattern? Kurt: …how well it comes through. What we’re looking at here is the drainage map. There is 6 ½ acres of drainage that will sheet flow into this existing swale that is the discharge for this, the pond up here. This water coming from the west and a majority of the hard surface will be redirected to the pond. Just a, give you something to compare that to, what is happening now and to get a feel for some of the issues and some of the drainage problems they’ve been experiencing. Currently this is a farm field and there is 26, 23 acres approximately that just sheet Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 43 flows into this same swale that we are now taking down 6 ½ acres. Greatly reducing the rate of erosion through that ravine and giving a mechanism for controlling that discharge rate. Keefe: So you’re saying the water flows from the west property through this property to the pond. So how does your grading work? Undestad: How does the water get to the pond? Back to that creek. Keefe: Yeah. Kurt: This area is higher than our development and there are rear yard catch basins going along these lots to collect the drainage. Take it into the street storm sewer. And there’s a low point in the road over here. This is coming up to match back into the existing grades. This starting to shed some light on it a little. Undestad: Then the lots on the other side. Keefe: Do they all slope, the lots on the east side. Kurt: The lots on this side, you know we are putting the rear yard drainage and some of the house drainage along the swale and it’s going to be private storm sewer and simply discharge at the base of the slope so that it doesn’t pick up a lot of momentum and pick up sediment. Keefe: And then the lots north of that. Kurt: These are just going to be sheet flowing, almost exactly as they are now. …it will be maintained lawn versus a crop which is sometimes better. Keefe: Okay. Undestad: Is that pond then, does that get piped? Kurt: This pond apparently discharges. Undestad: Into that field at the bottom of the plat there. Kurt: And it flows over, through here and makes a new ravine and eventually gets to a culvert underlying. McDonald: Where are these private pipes that you were talking about that were not going to be maintained? Kurt: Right here in these rear yards. There’s just one catch basin here. That’s our man hole…here. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 44 Keefe: I guess in terms of comfort level the city has with, you know I mean just given the issues we’ve had with water this summer and the steep grades associated with this particular piece of property and how comfortable are we with the solution. That we aren’t going to create issues when the property to the west develops. It doesn’t look like, it looks like the west is even higher. It looks like the west flows into this property more than, because from my understanding is the property to the west is going to develop at some point single family more than likely. Al-Jaff: The storm pond would have to be sized to accommodate all of the water. And there is an expansion of the storm pond proposed. Engineering department were working with 100 year calc’s. Drainage calc’s. Keefe: So, we just have to meet the standards associated, alright. Thank you. Undestad: Wait a minute while we’ve got the engineer up there. One more question on the retaining walls that you show on there. The by others. Is that something that again, I mean I know that you have a comment in here that the custom grading doesn’t make sense. The walls that you’re going to propose on there, these have been lowered I understand from where they used to be and those may be kind of exhausted all options on even trying to get those down even smaller or. Kurt: Maximum wall height was originally 20 feet. Typically be graded in for a lot and we were able to lower that to a maximum height of 10 or 11 feet. We shifted this road connection point over 20 feet. Because of this hill here we had to come up and tie into existing grades and make sure that this connection would work in the future to extend this. By moving this over 20 feet, we were able to lower that 4 feet and make it, it will be a little more of a similar transition to extend this road over to Audubon. And because we’re working with some custom builders of homes, we have some privileges to do a garage low which means the garage is going to low side and they just have to kind of do it, it just needs a little more attention. It’s not going to be any sort of big drainage issue. And then staff brought down another 3 feet or so and then we pulled the wall in slightly and end up with our results going from 20 feet max height down to 11. Undestad: So when you moved that road that way, is that what moved the line? Or was it keeping 5 acres to the south? Kurt: Well our grades are being pinned by where we had to tie because we were, this is the maximum allowed grade. Slightly under, 6.9. I believe you guys allow 7 is your typical maximum so by moving that down it just shifted the whole road down and then by moving the garage to the lower side of the lot, shifting the house down with that. We also extended the basement from a 9 foot to a 10 foot and taken some liberties with a custom builder again that we can try to reduce some of those walls. Undestad: And the walls are boulder walls out there that they’re proposing? Kurt: Yes. Undestad: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 45 McDonald: I have a couple questions for you. The pond and Lot 3, I’m not quite sure I understand that. Are you saying that, at that point if the pond is extended, does that put restrictions on Lot 3 that it’s not usable anymore? Al-Jaff: If I said Lot 3, then I mis-spoke. It should be Block 3. McDonald: Block 3. Al-Jaff: And this is Block 3. This entire area. The back of these lots can accommodate ponding. McDonald: Okay. So it’s Block 3. Al-Jaff: Yes. McDonald: All the lots in Block 3 will get ponding. Okay, then the other question I’ve got, we planned for a connection to the west property. What about a connection to the south property? What’s going to happen with that? Is that developable? Al-Jaff: It really isn’t developable. It has extremely steep grades, bluffs. It’s in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. There are too many issues… McDonald: Okay, so we don’t have to worry about somebody coming in at some point and wanting an access into that. Generous: They could come from Audubon or Lyman. McDonald: But it’s highly unlikely because of the land. Al-Jaff: That’s what we believe. That it is highly unlikely. McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions I had. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come forward and add anything else that we haven’t already discussed? Nathan Franzen: Sure. Good evening Commissioners. My name is Nathan Franzen with Plowshares Development. We got into a few of the comments already but this is our fourth project since 2000 in Chanhassen and we’re very pleased to be back servicing a new neighborhood. I just want to tell you a few of the general comments about the neighborhood that we find very attractive and appealing is just the good balance of the different types of lots. We have 17 walkouts, 2 lookouts and 11 full basements. We also have a nice variety of larger lots that can accommodate a pool or large play structures. We also have some that are wooded for people to have less lawn if they choose to. So overall for us it’s a great project. We’re talking to 3 custom builders. We’re about 95% there getting our contracts done. I’d let you know who those are as soon as I’m able to. They are approximating their home prices, the lot and home prices to be starting in approximately the 550 range and going up to somewhere in the 900 range. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 46 Their typical home will be a 4 to 5 bedroom, 3 car, 2,500 square feet. You’re pretty standard Chanhassen home that you see lately. And just, I want to go over a couple things that we’ve been working on with staff. This is our second submission. Our first submission we pulled, due to two staff concerns and that was primarily the retaining walls that we talked about, and the other one’s the livability of the lots themselves. Staff had concerns that we didn’t have enough rear, flat rear yard and we, and in conjunction with the, looking at the retaining wall issue we made sure that every lot had 20 feet of useable rear yard space. We also, I hope you all understand what happened with the retaining wall. It was a very teeter tottering effect between saving trees and reducing the height of the walls. If you have more questions about that, we can certainly get into that. We also did hold a neighborhood meeting. We had about 30 people attend. My opinion of what the neighborhood concerns primarily consisted upon some, there are some existing trees along this edge and along this edge. Between the proposed lots and existing lots. The neighbors had concern about those. Unfortunately most of those are going to be removed because of drainage creating some swales along property lines. We did commit to planting as many trees as possible. I think if you look at our landscape plan you’ll see that we’ve taken as much liberty with the trees along the existing development so that we can buffer our proposed lots with the existing lots. And lastly on the ponding issue, I’ve been working directly with Lori on the pond and the city’s consultant has been working directly with Kurt and we don’t anticipate any problems incorporating a larger regional solution into the design of our project. And if you have any questions about that, any more specific we can get into it but that is the gist of my comments. If you have any questions. Keefe: I’ve got a couple questions. You know just looking at the tree inventory, I mean you guys are taking out a lot of trees. Even in the report it talks about that you exceed the recommended number. Can you speak to what you guy’s strategy was in regards to that? Nathan Franzen: Sure. The existing property as proposed actually doesn’t even meet your ordinance because it is mostly a farm field. So even if we came in with 0 removal we’d still be below ordinance and we’d be penalized in planting above and beyond. So I just want to start out there so that’s where we started from. And the majority of the tree loss does happen on the southern end of the site where we’re trying to make that road connection and it has always been our desire to save as many trees as possible and that’s why we came in with such large retaining walls at first, with the 20 foot walls which are very expensive for us to construct. But we feel it’s worth building because it allows people to be closer to the trees and we saved more trees doing it that way. Working with staff we were able to come to a compromise which, you know there’s always the age old question between engineers and trees and which is more important. The steep grades, the higher retaining walls, so this really went back and forth but I’m actually pretty happy with how it turned out because our tree line loss from our first proposal, which had a 20 foot wall, is almost in the same location and we were able to achieve that through what Kurt described in shifting the road slightly to the south. I guess the long and short of the question is, I think we’ve done it as best as we can on this site and that, I guess that’s my comment. Keefe: The other question is in, I think it was mentioned a trail connector I think through Outlot A. Can you kind of direct me? Nathan Franzen: It’s the blue line. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 47 Keefe: Okay, to take you over to the park. And is there a sidewalk along the road or is there just? Nathan Franzen: There’s a sidewalk on one side, yeah. Keefe: That’s all I have. McDonald: Okay. Kurt, you have anything? Deborah? Mark? Undestad: I just had a couple quick ones here. Kind of goes back to that drainage and that pond and stuff. It’s all at the bottom of that Power Hill Park over there. There’s an outlet that doesn’t really show on my utility plan here but there’s an outlet out of that pond that comes out by. Nathan Franzen: You’re talking about this outlet? Undestad: Yes. And that just surface drains along the back field there? Nathan Franzen: Correct, it currently does. As this is proposed, that’s what happened, but in working with Lori, the city has already hired the consultant to accommodate some additional plans and some of the ideas the consultant is looking at is adding a second pond in this location and then actually doing a wetland bank for that water to even slow the water down. The big problem is that there’s too much water going too fast through that ravine and when it gets down to the bottom it’s totally washing out. Undestad: So if you leave it at the bottom of that field where it’s washing out it’s. Nathan Franzen: Correct. Undestad: Right now you can slide down there and it disappears. Nathan Franzen: It’s somewhat of a safety hazard I know for people sliding. And the solution. Undestad: Is that going to change then when you do this? Nathan Franzen: Yes. When the city project that’s being, basically what’s happening is the city’s coming in to fix the greater issue. It just so happens that we are developing at the same time so we’re going to piggy back and work together when we have our SAD equipment out there, we’ll be fixing it but the answer is, yes. We’ll be addressing that, the start of that ravine, the water that flows into that ravine. Slowing it all down. Providing more storage. It’s a big regional fix. Undestad: The other thing looking on your tree preservation plan back there, I noticed that about half of the trees that you’re saving back there are the box elder and the elm trees, which all those big maples disappeared and the elm trees are hanging around which pretty much you can count those every year on how fast they die out and tip over back there. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 48 Nathan Franzen: Yeah and unfortunately since the tree survey was taken we even lost a few of the big maples to the wind storm but it’s, again I think we’ve done is the best we can to accommodate saving as many trees as possible. Undestad: And that, Sharmeen you made a comment that all this was taken into the entire site. If no trees were cut down they still wouldn’t. Al-Jaff: They would still need to do a replacement. A reforestation and that’s what the reforestation ordinance looks for is to take farm fields and. Undestad: Put trees in them. Al-Jaff: Put trees in them. Undestad: Right. But the farm field part wouldn’t have changed anyway. It’s the wooded area on the other side that’s kind of getting tore up in there. Okay. McDonald: Okay, is that it? Okay, at this point we have no further questions and this is a public meeting. I will throw it open to the floor. Anyone wishing to come forward to make comments, please do so. Just state your name and address and address the commission. Dave Hess: My name is Dave Hess. I live at 8682 Flamingo Drive. My property is against Power Hill Park. Four lots down a hill from the entrance to the park so I get a first hand view of the overland flooding that occurs when we have intense rainfall out there. It’s a river and it goes into that gully and it erodes and it’s a problem right now that needs to be fixed. I have to trust that the engineers will figure out a way to fix the drainage there. But I don’t know that I’d want to own one of those lots down in that valley either once it gets developed but that’s an engineering situation that I don’t want to get into but just a couple of things that I wanted to talk about is Power Hill Park as you know is a sledding hill and the sledders go onto this private property now I believe and they sled all the way up to where that washed out area is. Now it sounds as though they’re proposing a drainage pond right where these sledders will be going and has there been talk about safety issues with sledders going onto this pond or is there a berm proposed that will stop the sledders or a wall that they can smash into or what, it hasn’t been addressed yet tonight. I assume it’s been addressed but… Al-Jaff: There will be, actually one of Commissioner Undestad asked the same question a few days ago and there will be a combination of plantings as well as a berm. Undestad: They want to try to slow you down with short grass, tall grass and tallest grass but again I mean that kind of came before potential pond down at the bottom of the hill too so I’m not sure where that was laid out in there. Dave Hess: Okay. My primary concern I guess is the steep grade. I think Dan has addressed that in his comments so. It’s a difficult site with some hydraulic issues and some erosion problems. I have to trust that it’s being looked into. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 49 McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else? Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. Property at 1551 Lyman Boulevard. I want to ask a question related to that drainage. The engineer suggested that the water flow eventually goes to underneath Lyman. Where is that? Can you tell me that. Nathan Franzen: It goes under Audubon. Rick Dorsey: So how does it get, can you show me on here, on the bigger map, the flow of the water. Undestad: Degler’s. Goes down Degler’s driveway. Kurt: It snakes down through the woods. Under the driveway back along this and then dissipates into this… Rick Dorsey: Then just another quick question in the subdivision where the southern part is being separated off. Are there any issues in doing that now with future plans to redevelop Lyman Boulevard as far as access points? That kind of thing. I’m aware they’re trying to get rid of access points because they want to take mine so I just want to find out you know what, how that parcel fits into the whole thing too. Thank you. McDonald: I think that was the question that I asked where you assured no development. Al-Jaff: No development down in that area. Rick Dorsey: There’s a house there now. Al-Jaff: Correct, but there is no additional proposed homes in that area and everything should stay status quo. McDonald: Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one else, we’ll close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back up to the commissioners for comments. Start with Mark this time. Undestad: Well, I think I got most of my questions answered in there. I guess you know still the draining issues around there are still, they finally answered it enough. Both on the bottom of the sliding hill and what washes into that creek down there. It all leads down to Lyman. Again I did talk with parks about, you know the bottom of the hill with how to control the sledders down there. There is a chunk of that creek, that ravine right now that just drops straight down in a hole and it’s a fun place to hide for those… If we dump all this water into there and again surface drain it right across there, is there going to be a real problem down there once that starts going in. If we put another pond in down there, now we’ve got everybody sliding down a hill into a pond, which isn’t bad in January when it’s froze up but if it was a November snowfall, they’re going to be sending them right down into a thin layer of ice in there. I think that’s something that still needs to be looked at down there as far as drainage does. The overall plan, the design of the plan Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 50 I think is, they did a good job. He came back and changed retaining walls, explained all that and, yeah I think just still a little bit of an engineering to work on there. That’s it. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Yeah, this is what, the fourth, I think the fourth development Plowshares has come in and I think they really work well with the city and I commend them for really putting some effort in and working with the city to try to address the issues. I too am very concerned about the water and anything they can do to minimize the runoff, particularly in light of what we’ve experienced this past summer. Over design is probably the operative word now just because we’re finding out that water, especially if we are getting heavier rain, more rains and you know 100 year events on a frequent basis. We need to start anticipating that. In addition to that I would like them to take another look at the, the trees that they’re cutting to see if they might save you know a few extra, especially the more significant trees. I know you guys have really gone through and done a nice job of inventory but take another look at it and see if you might be able to save a couple more if at all possible so. Otherwise I think it’s generally a good plan. McDonald: Deborah. Zorn: I think it is a, it looks to be a good plan this far as well and it’s nice to see some variety in the home plans that you also included. On the tree note that Dan just mentioned, staff, you recommend on the bottom of page 10 for alternatives to be researched by the applicant and I didn’t see that as part of the recommendations listed as one of the additional items so I guess I would be open to moving that perhaps to an amendment. And I guess I share some of the same drainage concerns as well. Those are my two comments. Papke: Nothing to add. McDonald: Nothing to add. I guess the only comment I’ve got is that, as I understand the way all this is now draining, it looks as though we’re fixing a problem here but what about downstream and the whole southern half of all this property? I guess I would feel better with a total comprehensive plan but what are we going to do with this water? The sledding hill is a big issue. A potential liability that we really don’t want to get into. I mean as you point out a November snow, there’s a pond down there, that, you’ve got to stop people from getting on the ice and I know that that’s a continual problem. It’s probably just as much of a hazard down there now but with the ravine and everything but I think that’s got to be tied in as part of the solution to all of this. I’m a little hesitant, I realize we can’t hold it up because of lack of a comprehensive plan and I guess I will trust staff and the developer to work together in that area but I think you’ve got a problem with the water and I don’t see a solution. I really don’t. I see it for this property but there’s property downstream. There’s other impact of a city park. There’s more than just this development and I think you can’t just look at fixing things here and everything else takes care of itself. So I think that needs to be looked at a little bit better so that we do solve the problems but other than that, with what’s going on and you know we get this thing developed, yeah. You’ve done a good job. You’ve come forward with some good housing plans and some good I think marketable inventory for the city so I’m pleased with all of that. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 51 The custom homes and those things will probably add a lot to those lots to the south. I guess that’s all I’ve got to say on this. I’m done so can I get a motion. Keefe: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case number 05-37 for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on plans stamped “Received November 18, 2005”, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case number 05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a right-of-way width variance as shown on the plans stamped “Received November 18, 2005”, subject to conditions 1 through 27. McDonald: Do I have a second? Papke: Second. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #05-37 for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on the plans stamped “Received November 18, 2005”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a right-of-way width variance, as shown on the plans stamped ‘Received November 18, 2005’, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed enlargement of the existing stormwater pond must be designed to meet the City’s minimum standards and coordinated and approved by the City Water Resources Coordinator. 2. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Storm sewer sizing calculations and a full-size drainage map must be submitted with the final plat for staff review and approval. 3. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. 4. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. 5. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 52 6. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Watershed District, MN Department of Health, Carver County and the Williams Pipe Line Company. 7. The developer must obtain written permission from the Williams Pipe Line Company to perform the proposed grading within the easement. The developer is responsible for complying with all conditions of the Williams Pipe Line Company and assumes full responsibility for work performed within this easement. 8. On the utility plan: a. Show all the proposed storm sewer pipe type, size and class. b. Show the sanitary sewer pipe slope and class. c. Show watermain pipe class (C900). d. Add a storm sewer schedule. e. Show the existing storm sewer between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 within the center of the 20- foot utility easement. f. Show the stormwater manholes rim and invert elevations. g. Add a note to remove the temporary pond outlet control structure. h. The last street-accessible storm manhole discharging to the stormwater pond must be manhole with sump. i. Add a note: any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled. j. Extend the storm sewer farther to the south along the proposed street. k. Remove Lots 7 and 8 backyard storm sewer and add a storm sewer along the property line between Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 8 and 9 block 4. 9. On the grading plan: a. Show Type II silt fence adjacent to wetland, pond, creeks, etc. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Use class 5 storm sewer in the roadway; revise the note under general grading and drainage notes accordingly. d. Extend the swale between Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 farther to the east. 10. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 11. The underlying property has not been assessed for sewer or water improvements. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees will be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 53 12. All disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 13. Any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 14. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 15. The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost and construction of the lift station and forcemain and any associated costs. 16. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 17. Add a “dead-end road” sign at the cul-de-sac. 18. On the plat, show all existing and proposed street names. 19. Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5204, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5217, 5221, 5232, 5234, 5240, 5241, 5300, 5301, 5302, 5302A and 5313. 20. Show the street lights and a stop sign on the plans. 21. Submit public utility plans and profile for staff review. 22. City Forester’s Conditions: a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 10/14/05. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 23. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Stonefield pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total $120,000 (30 lots x $4,000). Additionally, the applicant is required to construct the Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 54 neighborhood asphalt trail connector to the property line as depicted on their preliminary plan submittals. 24. Water Resource Coordinator’s Conditions: a. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland D. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. b. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c. The applicant shall work with the City’s consultant to accommodate regional and site- specific storm water needs. d. The approximate location and extent of drain tile shall be shown on the plans. The applicant shall provide details as to whether the tile line will be removed, abandoned in place or remain. If the tile is to remain, the flow from the tile shall be accommodated in the design of the storm water management plan. e. The applicant shall provide rate control and storm water treatment to reduce off-site impacts. To provide a low-gradient means for controlling rate and volume, the applicant shall consider cooperating with the City to construct a wetland in the rear portions of any number of Lots 1-8, Block 3. In the event that the applicant is interested in pursuing wetland construction for banking purposes, this planning shall be integrated with the City’s consultant’s storm water infrastructure planning. f. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure and storm water ponds. g. The developer asserts that, due to the steep grade in the southern portion of the property, custom grading would not save any additional trees. In addition, the developer maintains that the slope of the road and the location of the retaining wall make custom grading lots impractical. If the developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of staff that custom grading for their typical house pad would not result in additional significant tree preservation, mass grading of this area may be approved. h. The existing outlet structure of Pond A shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the City’s standard detail. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the pond. i. The portion of the silt fence that runs from the pipeline easement through Lot 7, Block 3 shall be moved upslope to the west by 30 to 60 feet to more clearly define the grading limits. The area of property between the silt fence and the gully and property line shall Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 55 be seeded and mulched to control weeds and get a desirable cover crop in areas that were recently farmed. j. A temporary basin shall be constructed in the vicinity of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. The temporary sediment basin shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope area. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the basin shall be installed; details shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e. The basins must provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). k. Chanhassen Type 2 silt fence shall be provided for the perimeter of the site up to Lot 10, Block 3. From there, Type 1 may be used. Silt fence shall be shown on the plans around Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. l. Curbside inlet controls are needed; Wimco type or ESS type (or approved similar protection) inlet controls shall be used. Curbside inlet protection shall be provided for existing inlets adjacent to the site exit on Osprey Lane. City standard inlet protection details 5302 and 5302A shall be included in the plans. The proposed rear yard catch basin protection shall be revised; Wimco type, ESS type or equal must be used. The proposed silt fence shall be installed with additional rock around Chanhassen type 1 silt fence. m. The plans shall be revised to show energy dissipation for the flared end section on Lot 7, Block 3. n. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. o. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 56 p. In order to fund the maintenance and expansion of the BC-P4.10 storm water pond and construction of additional capacity, the costs will be allocated among the benefiting properties. The total cost of materials and construction will be divided by the number of acres in the resulting subwatershed. The City will be responsible for the acres contributing from land already developed, park land and land to be developed in the future (e.g., the Bongard parcel). The developer will be responsible for the acres contributing from their development. If, for any reason, the regional storm water facility is not constructed, the developer will be responsible for providing storm water quality and quantity management on the subject property and paying Surface Water Management connection charges in accordance with City Code. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $65,364. q. In conjunction with the BC-P4.10 storm water ponding project, land in addition to the land shown in Outlot A may be required. At this time, the estimated amount of land is approximately 0.5 acres. The developer and the City will seek to agree upon the terms of the use of land for ponding should additional land be required. The developer, if required, shall provide additional land for ponding. 25. Fire Marshall Conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be either removed from site or chipped. b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. A fire apparatus access road 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 Fire Code Section 503.2.3. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. 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. e. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable. f. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005 57 26. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 27. The retaining walls shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 28. The City shall not be responsible for maintenance of storm water infrastructure on Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 3.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Al-Jaff: Mr. Chairman? McDonald: Yes. Al-Jaff: There are 28 conditions. Keefe: Oh, you added one didn’t you. 1 through 28. McDonald: The handout sheet you gave us. Could I get a correction then. Keefe: Yes. Conditions 1 through 28. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 15, 2005 as presented. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager DATE: December 29, 2005 SUBJ: Amendment to the 2006 City Council Meeting Schedule It has been brought to my attention that a quorum of City Council members may not be available for the March 27, 2006 meeting due to the school’s spring break. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the 2006 meeting schedule be amended to reflect changing the March 27th meeting to March 20th. Approval requires a simple majority vote of those City Council members present. ATTACHMENT 1. 2006 Meeting Calendar CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2006 MEETING SCHEDULE SMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFS 12341234 1234567567891011567891011 8910111213141213141516171812131415161718 151617181920211920212223242519202122232425 22232425262728262728262728293031 293031 SMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFS 1123456123 23456787891011121345678910 91011121314151415161718192011121314151617 161718192021222122232425262718192021222324 2324252627282928293031252627282930 30 SMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFS 11234512 234567867891011123456789 91011121314151314151617181910111213141516 161718192021222021222324252617181920212223 23242526272829272829303124252627282930 3031 SMTWTFSSMTWTFSSMTWTFS 1234567123412 8910111213145678910113456789 151617181920211213141516171810111213141516 222324252627281920212223242517181920212223 293031262728293024252627282930 31 CITY HOLIDAYS COUNCIL MEETINGS - 2ND & 4TH MONDAYS PLANNING COMMISSION - 1ST & 3RD TUESDAYS PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION - 4TH TUESDAY (2ND TUESDAY IN DECEMBER) ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION - 2ND TUESDAY SENIOR COMMISSION - 3RD FRIDAY EVERY OTHER MONTH JANUARY 2006FEBRUARY 2006MARCH 2006 APRIL 2006MAY 2006JUNE 2006 AUGUST 2006SEPTEMBER 2006 OCTOBER 2006NOVEMBER 2006DECEMBER 2006 JULY 2006 G:\Agenda Manager\1-9-06\1b 2006 Meeting Calendar.xls Planning Commission City Council Enterprise Rent-A-Car Planning Case No. 05-41 December 6 January 9, 2005 Page 3 BACKGROUND On February 14, 2000, the City Council approved Zoning Ordinance Amendment #99-3 to permit automobile rental facilities as a conditional use in the Highway and Business District, BH, with conditions (reference Section 20-284 of City Code). ANALYSIS The subject property is located in the Highway and Business District (BH) with automotive repair as its primary use. The site contains a principle structure approximately 19,000 square feet in area with approximately 80 62 parking stalls. City Code Section 20-1124 states: The minimum number of required on-site parking spaces for the following uses shall be: b. Auto sales, trailer sales, marine and boat sales, implement sales, garden supply store, building materials sale, auto repair, automobile rental facilities--One parking space for each 500 square feet of floor area. According to City Code, given the principle use, the subject property must contain a minimum of 38 parking stalls. With 80 62 existing parking stalls the site has more than two times exceeds that which is required by ordinance. Section 20-284 of the City Code states: “The number of rental vehicles shall not exceed 15”. Three additional parking spaces shall be allocated for the use of employees and customers for a maximum of 18 parking stalls designated for Enterprise Rent-A-Car use. The parking lot is screened by a combination of fence, retaining wall and landscaping. The East Water Treatment Plant is currently being constructed directly to the east of the subject property and will provide an additional landscape buffer for the automobile rental use. Planning Commission City Council Enterprise Rent-A-Car Planning Case No. 05-41 December 6 January 9, 2005 Page 4 The standards for car rental established with Zoning Ordinance Amendment #99-3, now contained in Section 20-284 of the City Code, will be effective in regulating the requested use. Furthermore, the request for operation of an automobile rental facility at the subject property will compliment the existing use and will serve as a convenient amenity for the community. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit #05-41 to rent automobiles on property zoned Highway and Business District (BH) located at 227 West 79th Street. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall recommend approval of a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1. Will not be detrimental to or damage the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood of the city. Finding: Approval of the conditional use permit will add to the comfort and convenience of the residence of the city. MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: 2006 Street Improvement: Consider Land Purchase Agreement for Storm Pond Improvement - Project No. 06-01 REQUESTED ACTION Council is requested to approve the land acquisition agreement between the City and Ann Nye. BACKGROUND On August 22, 2005, staff discussed the proposed scope of the 2006 Street Improvement Project with Council at a work session. On September 12, 2005 Council approved a contract with Bolten & Menk, Inc. for engineering services for the project. On September 1, 2005, Nagell Appraisal & Consulting submitted a Restricted Appraisal Report for Ann Nye’s property at 1641 - 63rd Street West. DISCUSSION The 2006 street reconstruction project includes the installation of storm sewer and curb and gutter in addition to the replacement of sanitary sewer and watermain. The installation of storm sewer necessitates the construction of ponds within the reconstruction project area. Due to the topography of the area, staff has identified three pond areas for this project: · Ann Nye, 1641 - 63rd Street · Barry Conda property, 6285 Audubon Circle · Bill Coffman, property south of 6481 Yosemite Avenue Acquisition of the Conda and Coffman easements are almost complete. Staff met with Ann Nye to discuss the findings of Nagell’s appraisal of her property. The appraisal considered land values within the neighborhood for both upland and lowland areas and appraised the 3.5 acre easement area at $162,261.00. Paul Oehme January 9, 2006 Page 2 The City’s Planning Department provided a sketch showing how the Nye property could be developed under the current subdivision standards. Based on this sketch, the easement acquisition would result in a loss of one buildable lot (“Building 1”) for the Nye property. The topography for “Building 1” is conducive to a walkout, which would overlook the wetland, therefore, Ms. Nye is requesting $180,000.00 since a “Building 1” would be a highly desirable lot. Funding for the purchase is proposed 100% from the Stormwater Utility Fund and was budgeted for in the 2005 CIP SWMP-014. The appraisal is available in the Engineering department for further review. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and find it acceptable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Ann Nye easement acquisition for $180,000.00. Attachments c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk, Inc. G:\ENG\PUBLIC\06-01 2006 Street Improvements\bkgd Ann Nye land purchase 010906.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: TH 101 Corridor Design Study South of Lyman Boulevard to Scott County Line: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County/MnDOT - PW067F4 REQUESTED ACTION Approve Joint Powers Agreement for TH 101 Preliminary Design. BACKGROUND On August 22, 2005, staff discussed with Council if a Preliminary Design study should be initiated to identify improvements along TH 101 south of Lyman Boulevard to the Scott County line. The corridor is currently not planned for any major improvements by MnDOT or turnback to the County in the next 15 years. The proposed preliminary design is the first step to having MnDOT program funds for upgrading the road and is necessary for any future grant applications. The corridor has several significant design concerns. The Y intersection at MN 101 and old US 212 does not function effectively during peak periods. Steep grades are present north of old US 212. The corridor has several tight curves and most of the alignment does not meet state design standards. Several hidden driveway entrances and blind intersections exist along the corridor. A blind trail intersection is located north of old US 212. Several severe injury accidents and one fatal accident have been documented in the past year. Areas along the corridor (2010 MUSA) are expected to develop in the next five years that will add additional traffic to the corridor. With an interchange access to new US 212 from MN 101 anticipated to open in 2007, traffic volumes along the corridor will likely increase. MnDOT has reviewed the City and County request for a joint project of the corridor to begin planning for future improvements. MnDOT has recently budgeted $50,000 for this work. Staff has budgeted for this work in the 2006 CIP, ST-017. The City’s share of the study is proposed to be funded by Municipal State Aid. One-third of the study will be City cost in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Todd Gerhardt January 9, 2006 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc The County, MnDOT and the City are currently going through a selection process for a consultant. Proposals from the consultants are due back on January 5, 2006. It is anticipated the parties will have a consultant selected for the study by the January 23, 2006 City Council meeting. The study is scheduled to take nine months to complete. After preliminary design is complete, an environmental study (EIS or EAW) is programmed for 2008 which will facilitate officially mapping the corridor. Once this work is complete and funds have been programmed, improvement projects can be implemented. The earliest staff envisions any major improvements taking place is by 2010. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and finds it in order. Attachments c: Lynn P. Clarkowski - MnDOT MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: January 3, 2006 SUBJ: Accept $1,000 Donation to the Chanhassen Recreation Center from TCF Bank TCF Bank is opening a new branch inside the Chanhassen Cub Foods store. In celebration of this new opening, TCF Bank would like to make a $1,000 cash contribution to the Chanhassen Recreation Center. Ms. Elizabeth Hoffmann with TCF Bank marketing contacted the City proposing to make this contribution. In consultation with Tom Knowles, the Recreation Center Manager, Tom expressed a desire to upgrade the audio/visual equipment in use at the center. The Recreation Center stands out in the state as one of the most successful public/public partnerships ever developed. The center hosts thousands of area residents on a monthly basis in our gymnasium, dance and aerobic room, fitness center and meeting rooms. City staff is pleased that TCF Bank considers the Recreation Center a worthwhile cause and is excited about their offer to contribute to the center. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept TCF Bank’s offer to contribute $1,000 cash to the Chanhassen Recreation Center and direct staff to prepare and deliver an appropriate acknowledgement letter thanking TCF Bank for this generous contribution to the City. MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: Receive Feasibility Study and Call for Public Hearings for the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01 BACKGROUND On September 26, 2005, Council authorized the preparation of the 2006 Street Improvement Feasibility Report. On December 8, 2005, staff held an open house meeting with residents in the Koehnen neighborhood to discuss the proposed street and utility reconstruction project. On December 15, 2005 staff held an open house meeting with residents in the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood to discuss the proposed street rehabilitation project. DISCUSSION The street improvements proposed for 2006 were identified using the City’s Pavement Management Program and because of the utility problems in these areas. 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 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 in this area 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 Paul Oehme January 9, 2006 Page 2 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. Approximately 25 residents attended the Koehnen area open house on December 8, 2005. The following generalizes the questions and comments received at the open house: · Why are the anticipated assessment costs so high? · Who decided that these roads need to be reconstructed? · Why is the City’s standard cul-de-sac 90 feet in diameter? It seems large. · Upgrading Yosemite will increase the traffic volume on the road. · Will trees be removed? · What is the proposed timeline for this project? All property owners’ questions were answer at the meeting or with a follow up letter or phone call. The project and the feasibility report also include resurfacing or rehabilitation of the streets in the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood. These streets are 15 years old and are recommended for milling and overlaying. Improvement consists of milling the pavement and paving a minimum of 2” bituminous. Damaged “alligatored” pavement areas will be removed and repaved prior to the overlay. Severely damaged curb will be replaced. Some draintile will be included in the project. 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 Chanhassen Hills area is $1,698.15/lot and is proposed to be assessed over an 8-year period at 6% interest. Four residents attended the Chanhassen Hills area open house on December 15, 2005. The following generalizes the questions and comments received at the open house: Paul Oehme January 9, 2006 Page 3 · Why doesn’t the City pay for the entire project cost? · Who decided these streets need to be worked on? · What is the project schedule? · Will Draintile be included in the project? All property owners’ questions were answer at the meeting or with a follow up letter or phone call. Final assessment amounts will be based on the consultation report the Engineering Department is working on with the City Attorney. This report is expected to be completed by the end of January, 2006. Also included in this year’s street project are proposed improvements to the parking lots at Lake Ann Park. Most of the drives and parking areas are in very poor condition and are in need of reconstruction. The improvements include reconstruction of the roadways, realignment of roadways, reconstruction of parking areas and overlay of parking areas. Also included will be placement of concrete curb and gutter in parking areas. These components of the project and the feasibility report will be presented to City Council at the next meeting prior to the public hearing. Copies of the feasibility report are available in the Engineering Department. Funding for this project is proposed as follows: ITEM ESTIMATED COST 2006 CIP Budget Amount 2006 CIP Project Number $ 500,000.00 ST-012 (MSA) Street Reconstruction $ 1,561,073.00 1,600,000.00 ST-012 Rehabilitation Area (Chanhassen Hills) 661,300.00 125,000.00 ST-018 (Pvmt. Mgmt.) Subtotal, Streets $ 2,222,373.00 $ 2,225,000.00 Lake Ann Park $ 321,235.00 $ 350,000.00 PK&T-051 Storm Sewer 586,011.00 400,000.00 SWMP-019 Sanitary Sewer Reconstruction 185,679.00 310,000.00 SS-014 Watermain Reconstruction 544,585.00 440,000.00 W-024 TOTAL $ 3,859,883.00 $ 3,725,000.00 Paul Oehme January 9, 2006 Page 4 The estimated costs for storm sewer improvements are higher than the budgeted amount since the detailed storm sewer design was not complete when the budget amount was determined. The estimated watermain costs are high due to the unforeseen increase in the cost of watermain pipe. The tentative schedule for this project is as follows: Public Hearing Koehnen Area January 23, 2005 Public Hearing Chanhassen Hills Area February 13, 2005 Bid Opening March 16, 2006 Neighborhood Meeting April 5, 2006 Assessment Hearing/Award Contract April 23, 2006 Neighborhood Meeting May 3, 2006 Start Construction May 15, 2006 Construction Complete August 25, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council accept the feasibility study and call for public hearings for the 2006 Street Improvement, Project No. 06-01. Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Location Maps 3. CIP Pages c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk G:\ENG\PUBLIC\06-01 2006 Street Improvements\01-09-06 CC approve feas report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Bill Bement, Engineering Technician IV DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: Accept Public Utilities in Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition Project No. 03-08 Staff has received a letter from Mr. Jerry Backman, Project Engineer with Schoell & Madson, requesting the City consider acceptance of the utility improvements in the above-referenced project. According to Mr. Backman, the public improvements have been completed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications. City staff performed an inspection as well and found the project to be in satisfactory condition. It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept the public utility improvements in Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition, Project No. 03-08, for perpetual maintenance and ownership conditioned upon receipt of an acceptable maintenance bond. jms Attachments: 1. Letter from Jerry Backman dated November 30, 2005. 2. Location Map. c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Backman, Schoell & Madson Gaylen Tongen, Steiner Development g:\eng\projects\arboretum 6th\accept utilities.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: TH 101 GAP Project No. 04-06: Consider Land Purchase Agreement with Lake Susan Apartments REQUESTED ACTION Approve land purchase agreement with Lake Susan Apartments. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2005, Council approved a municipal consent resolution for this project. DISCUSSION The TH 101 Gap project is proposed to address system continuity and safety issues along TH 101 from Lake Drive to 86th Street. TH 101 currently has four lanes north of Lake Drive and will be constructed to four lanes south of 86th Street as part of the TH 212 realignment project. The segment of TH 101 between Lake Drive and 86th Street, a distance of approximately 2,400 feet, currently has two lanes. Existing TH 101 will be cul-de-saced near Lake Susan and turned back to the City. Access for the properties living on existing TH 101 will be provided off of Lake Susan Drive. Existing TH 101 will be reconstructed, widened to four lanes and urbanized with concrete curb and gutter. The roadway section will be consistent with the TH 101 roadway section MnDOT is building with the TH 212 project. A pedestrian underpass is proposed at the current pedestrian crossing to improve safety. Additional pedestrian trails will be built on the east side of TH 101. Staff has been working with Lake Susan Apartments on trail easements and drainage and utility easements for this project over the past several months. These easements were dedicated at no cost to the City. The last piece of property needed for the improvements is from Outlot I that Lake Susan Apartments currently owns. This piece must be purchased instead of having an easement dedicated. Outlot I is .47 acres and will have a trail constructed and a portion of the trail underpass box culvert constructed on it. The purchase price is $4,094.64. Todd Gerhardt January 9, 2006 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc It is proposed that trail dedication funds be used for this purchase. The property will eventually become MnDOT right-of-way. The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and finds it in order. SCHEDULE The project schedule is as follows: Stream Relocation Construction Completion Summer, 2006 Construction Agreement Executed August, 2006 Roadway Construction Bid Opening September, 2006 Roadway Construction Begins April, 2007 Construction Completion November, 2007 Attachment c: Lynn P. Clarkowski, MnDOT C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works DATE: January 9, 2006 SUBJ: Amended Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll For The TH 312/212 Improvement Project Nos. 03-09-3, 04-05, 04-06 REQUESTED ACTION Adopt Amended Resolution for TH 312/212 Improvements. BACKGROUND On October 24, 2005, Council held an assessment hearing for the TH 312/212 Improvements. On November 14, 2005 Council adopted the assessment for the TH 312/212 Improvements. At the assessment hearing, four benefiting property owners contested their assessments. At the October 24, 2005 Council meeting, two property owners, Arthur Johnson and G & M Laurent dropped their assessment appeal. These two properties are in the 2010 MUSA area. Their assessments are proposed to be deferred until 2010 since they would not receive any benefit for the improvements until such time. The two property owners submitted assessment appeal withdrawal letters that were included in the adopted assessment roll packet. However, after further review of the letters, the language was not consistent with the City’s adopted assessment resolution. The proposed assessment roll resolution defers the assessment outside the 2005 MUSA area without interest until 2010. The revised assessment resolution defers the assessments until such time the properties are brought into MUSA. The property owners were concerned that if the 2010 MUSA area is not brought into the MUSA at that current time frame, they would still need to pay the assessments starting in 2010. Staff supports the change in the resolution because if the MUSA area is moved back to some future date, there would be no benefit to the properties until such time. There is no plan to move the 2010 MUSA back, however, the change in the resolution language is recommended. The resolution includes all assessments deferred not just the two property owners that contested the assessments. The City Attorney has reviewed this issue and finds it acceptable. Attachment c: Larry D. Martin - L. D. Martin & Associates, Ltd. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: January 9, 2005 RESOLUTION NO: 2006- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: AMENDED RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE TH 312/212 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 03-09-3, 04-05, 04-06 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the improvement of: Properties identified in the 2005 MUSA Feasibility Report, properties along new Powers Boulevard from Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer Trail, Lyman Boulevard from Powers Boulevard to TH 101, TH 101 from Lake Susan Drive to Lyman Boulevard and Pioneer Trail from west city limits to new Powers Boulevard. WHEREAS, on November 14, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution 2005-93 for the TH 312/212 Improvement Project No. 03-09-3, 04-05, 04-06; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined to amend Paragraph 3 of the resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Chanhassen, Minnesota: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, if hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of seven (7) years, the first of the installments to be payable with the first installment of the 2006 property taxes, and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent (6%) per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2005. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The special assessments on property outside the MUSA are deferred without interest until the property is brought into the MUSA. When the deferment, ends the assessments will be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of seven (7) years and will bear interest at the rate of 6 percent (6%) per annum on the unpaid balance from the date the deferment ends. 4. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 60 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 5. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 9th day of January, 2006. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor YES NO ABSENT MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DATE: January 4, 2006 SUBJ: Vacation of Public Easements within the Stonefield Plat Vacation File No. 05-37 REQUEST (Simple Majority Vote Required) Ploweshares Development, the developer of the Stonefield subdivision, requests to vacate the drainage and utility easement on the north side of Osprey Lane, the temporary pond easement on the south side of Osprey Lane, and the street, drainage and utility easement over Osprey Lane. BACKGROUND The existing public easements were granted to the City in conjunction with the Shenandoah Ridge plat in 1995. DISCUSSION The Shenandoah Ridge plat required the extension of Osprey Lane, therefore a 50- foot wide street, drainage and utility easement was obtained over the portion of Osprey Lane that runs through the Goers property, the parent parcel of the Stonefield plat. The Stonefield development will plat right of way over this segment of Osprey Lane. The proposed right of way width will match the existing 60-foot wide right of way on the west side and the existing 50-foot wide right of way on the east side. The storm sewer from the Alisa Court portion of Shenanhoah Ridge bisects the portion of the proposed Stonefield development that lies north of Osprey Lane. The developer of Stonefield proposes to realign this storm sewer segment and will plat a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the pipe with the final plat. The temporary ponding easement south of Osprey Lane was granted to provide temporary ponding for the storm sewer outlet from Alisa Court. The Stonefield project proposes to extend the storm sewer to the regional storm pond to the east, which will be enlarged to accommodate runoff from the Stonefield plat and the existing development within the subwatershed. Staff does not object to the proposed easement vacation since the street easement will be replaced with platted right of way, the drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer will be replatted, and the temporary pond will not be necessary once the regional pond is expanded. Paul Oehme January 4, 2006 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution vacating the existing storm water ponding easement, street, drainage and utility easement, and drainage and utility easement as defined on the attached vacation description and contingent upon City Council approval of the final plat.” Attachments: 1. Application 2. Description of Easement Vacation 3. Easement Vacation Sketch 4. Notice of Public Hearing/Location Map 5. Affidavit of Mailing c: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Nathan Franzen, Plowshares Development Curtis Neft, Westwood Professional Services G:\ENG\Vacations\Stonefield - PC 05-37\01-09-06 CC memo.doc Stonefield Addition Planning Case No. 05-37 December 6, 2005 Page 21 that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. e. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable. f. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 26. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 27. The retaining walls shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 28. The City shall not be responsible for maintenance of storm water infrastructure on Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 3. 29. In the event that the regional pond project is not constructed, the applicant has proposed the installation of a second outlet structure on Pond A. In that event, the existing outlet structure that is failing must also be replaced. The cost of a new outlet structure to replace the existing failing structure would be borne by the City, but the replacement would be done by the applicant.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 4. Potential footprints for houses to be built within the Stonefield Subdivision. 5. Letter from the developer extending the deadline to complete this application to 120 days. 6. Preliminary plat dated “Received November 18, 2005”. 7. Sketch of lot line revision between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 with house footprint. 8. Sketch showing placement of storm sewer on the lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Correspondence Section 2005 Chanhassen Cable TV Channel 8 Review. Letter from Peter Bell, Metropolitan Council dated December 21, 2005. Article in the Business Journal regarding Arnold Angeloni, CEO of AmericInn. Letter from Mediacom dated December 12, 2005. Memo from Greg Sticha, Finance Director dated January 4, 2006 regarding Claims Paid. Invitation to Eastern Carver County Community Leaders Group Meeting on Saturday, January 14, 2006 re: Crisis in our Community—are we prepared? Building Permit Valuations Comparing 1998-2005.