The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Packet 2005 11 28TENTATIVE AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2005 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. 5:30 p.m. - Joint Meeting with the Senior Commission. B. 6:00 p.m. - 2006 Budget & Capital Improvement Program. C. 6:45 p.m. - Elected Official Travel Policy. D. Comprehensive Plan Update Process. E. Retail Market Study - McComb Group. F. Council Discussion of City Manager’s Performance Review (no attachments). 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS G. Invitation to Tree Lighting Ceremony. H. Presentation of Environmental Excellence Awards. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1. a. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 14, 2005 - City Council Summary Minutes dated November 14, 2005 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated November 14, 2005 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. b. Environmental Commission: Approval of Amendment to the Bylaws, Changing the Meeting Date & Time. c. Minnewashta Creek Hill, 6560 Minnewashta Parkway: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Development Contract and Plans & Specifications d. Resolution Approving the Issuance of a Revenue Note by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Chanhassen. e. Item Deleted (Highcrest Meadows & Highcrest Meadows 2nd Addition: Approve Amendments to Development Contracts, Project Nos. 05-07 & 05-08. f. Knob Hill 2nd Addition, Project No. 02-06: Accept Streets & Storm Sewer. g. Accept Donation to the Senior Center from Community Bank Chanhassen. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE 2a. Sgt. Jim Olson, Carver County Sheriff's Department 2b. Chief Gregg Geske, Chanhassen Fire Department. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Correspondence Section 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: November 28, 2005 SUBJ: Discussion Topics for joint City Council/Senior Commission Meeting The following are the Commission’s Accomplishments, Goals and Objectives for 2005: 1. Identify Issues Facing Senior Citizens And Present Them, With Possible Solutions And Recommendations, To The City Council: The Senior Commission had an open house on October 21, 2005. Approximately 60 seniors from the community attended the meeting. The open house focused on services available in the City of Chanhassen. The attendees expressed a need for more public transportation. A consultant with Carver County Health Partnership was present at the meeting. She provided an overview of the issues facing seniors in Carver County. She also explained that the County is forming senior commissions similar to Chanhassen. 2. Transportation: In response to the request for additional public transportation, staff contacted SouthWest Metro Transit and provided them with a city map reflecting all high density residential areas and major points of interest in the city such as shopping areas, clinics, library, etc. SouthWest Metro is in the process of purchasing a vehicle (circulator bus) to serve Chanhassen. 3. Senior Center: The number of attendees at the Senior Center continues to increase. The senior commission is currently working with Sue Bill, Senior Center Coordinator, on a “Tuesday coffee at senior center”. The Commission has been working with Cub Foods to donate rolls to the Center. The donation would be made through the Lions Club. 4. Veterans Memorial: The Senior Commission wishes to discuss a veteran’s memorial with the City Council. If the City Council is in favor of such a memorial, the commission will contact the American Legion and begin investigating deferent locations within the city. The Senior Commission believes that the American Legion will help fund this memorial. Todd Gerhardt Joint Meeting with Senior Commission November 28, 2005 Page 2 5. Communication: a. Computer Training: The commission presented this item to the City Council at the May 2005 joint meeting. One of the most effective means of obtaining information is through the web. Some seniors are intimidated by computers. The Senior Commission worked through the Senior Center to begin a computer training program. Volunteers have been recruited to provide one-on-one training to seniors. We believe this problem will correct itself as the “.com” generation ages. This program has been very successful. b. Educate Future Generations of Seniors: Increase awareness of the opportunities and challenges that face seniors in Chanhassen. c. Communication With Neighboring Senior Centers and Community Education: · Coordination of events. · Transportation coordination with other senior centers and community education. · Work with communities within Carver County to assist in creating Senior Friendly Communities. d. Volunteer Opportunities for Seniors: The Senior Commission is working to coordinate and develop partnerships for volunteer opportunities for seniors at the library, schools, City events such as Arbor Day, computer training, senior center duties, etc. 6. Senior Parking at Public Buildings: Ongoing. The Senior Commission contacts local businesses and requests the installation of “Senior Parking” signs at their parking lots. 7. Support: a. Senior Expo: This goal gives staff and seniors an opportunity to learn about issues facing seniors, what other communities are doing to address these issues, and form partnerships with other agencies. The Expo is held once a year and the cost for this valuable service is only $16.00 per person. b. Chanhassen Heritage Preservation: Continue to promote and preserve Chanhassen’s history. c. Food shelf: The senior center is a drop-off location for non-perishable food items. d. Inter-generational activities: Work with the schools on joint activities between seniors and students of all ages, i.e. storytelling, sharing experiences, etc. Todd Gerhardt Joint Meeting with Senior Commission November 28, 2005 Page 3 8. Have an Annual Joint Work Session Between the Senior Commission and the City Council to Present the Goals and Objectives for the Year and Ensure that the Council’s Vision and their Expectations of the Senior Commission Will be Met: The Senior Commission members are actively involved in the community. They listen and educate seniors on programs available to them and hear the concerns and issues facing them. Through this format, they are able to poll a representative sample and report the key issues to the City Council. g:\plan\sa\sc\senior goals 2005 end.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director DATE: November 18, 2005 SUBJ: Comprehensive 2006 Budget Review & Capital Improvement Budget The 2006 budget as presented meets the requirements set by the City Council when the preliminary levy was established in September. The budget has been reviewed by staff and thanks to their vigorous efforts, the 2006 expenditure amounts provide for a zero dollar increase for the average homeowner over last year’s tax levy, while still providing for the programmatic needs of each department. The budget in its current state provides for a transfer to debt service for $285,000, which is a use of general fund reserves, in order to achieve a zero dollar increase to the average homeowner. The primary adjustments made since the last time we discussed the individual budgets were in the area of salaries and benefits. In our original budget, we had included a 15% increase for healthcare costs. Due to the decision to change healthcare providers as well as formats to BlueCross/Blueshield, there will be a 7.5% increase in the city’s share of healthcare costs rather than a 15% increase as in the preliminary budget. This results in $31,000 in savings to the city. These funds have been reallocated to pay for previously unbudgeted utility costs for old St. Hubert’s and estimated larger heating costs than budgeted for originally at the Library building. General Fund Expenditures Total budgeted expenditures in the general fund increase from $8,308,420 to $8,900,100. Of this $591,680 increase, $285,000 is a use of general fund reserves to be transferred to the debt service levy of the 1998A Park GO Bonds. Of the remaining increase, $225,650 (74%) is for increased wages and benefits to general fund employees, $20,000 for an increase in the police services contract with Comprehensive 2006 Budget Review November 18, 2005 Page 2 Carver County, and a $61,000 increase for estimated additional fuel and heating costs. These three items represent $305,650 (99.6%) of the increase in the general fund budget. There is only one request for additional personnel hours and that is in the senior citizens center (1560). This is an increase from twenty to twenty-four hours per week for the senior coordinator. Revenues As mentioned in last year’s budget memo, the legislature has eliminated the Market Value Homestead Credit to help balance the state’s budget. The effect of this legislation is that we will not receive $218,766 of property taxes we were scheduled to receive in 2005, and we will not receive and have to levy for a similar amount in 2006. Based on the previous year’s history, we are budgeting for only nominal increases in license revenue. Permit revenue projections are totally dependent on development. We had some larger permit receipts in 2004, but we are on schedule to be under budget in 2005, and are anticipating similar permit receipts in 2006 compared with 2005. The other revenue item of note is that we are planning for additional rental income from cell tower leases in 2006. We are anticipating that the remainder of other revenues will have relatively flat increases compared to 2005. Debt Service Levies Total debt service levies for 2006 are $1,938,790 compared with $2,225,934 in 2005. Keep in mind in order to achieve the $1.9 million in levies for 2006, we used $285,000 in general fund reserves to pay down the debt of the 2004A GO Park Bonds. These bonds were refinanced in November to achieve a flat debt service tax levy for future years and also saved the city almost $50,000 in interest costs. Capital Improvement Program The 2006-2010 CIP had very few changes from the prior year’s CIP, especially in the 2006 year. The one item of note is the capital replacement fund. Through diligent work of staff, we were able to get the total funds requested for 2006 down to $848,000. This, along with cost savings from 2005 CIP items discussed at our previous meeting, means there will be no effect on the fund balance of the capital replacement fund for years 2005 and 2006. Comprehensive 2006 Budget Review November 18, 2005 Page 3 There are several large items included in future years of the CIP of note, and those include: · Public Works Facility Improvement for 2008 at $3.9 million · Water treatment facility in 2012 for $11 million · New Fire Station in 2010 and related equipment for $4.5 million · Upgrades to Lyman Boulevard in 2009 ATTACHMENTS 1. Tax Levy Comparison 2. General Fund Revenues 3. General Fund Expenditures 4. Bond Debt Levy Schedule 5. Revolving Assessment Fund 6. Carver County Levy Comparison Schedule 7. Carver County Residential Tax Change Schedule 8. Justin Miller Pay Comp Plan Adjustment Memo MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager DATE: November 15, 2005 RE: Elected Official Travel Policy BACKGROUND During this year’s session, the Minnesota legislature passed a law stating that by January 1, 2006, each city must adopt a policy addressing out-of-state travel by elected officials. The exact wording of the law is as follows: By January 1, 2006, the governing body of each statutory or home rule charter city, county, school district, regional agency, or other political subdivision, except a town, must develop a policy that controls travel outside the state of Minnesota for the applicable elected officials of the relevant unit of government. The policy must be approved by a recorded vote and specify: (1) when travel outside the state is appropriate; (2) applicable expense limits; and (3) procedures for approval of the travel. The policy must be made available for public inspection upon request and reviewed annually. Subsequent changes to the policy must be approved by a recorded vote. The League of Minnesota Cities has prepared a template policy for cities to use. Minor changes have been made to fit the City of Chanhassen’s needs, and the proposed language is attached to this report. RECOMMENDATION If the City Council is comfortable with this language, it will be placed on the December 12th city council agenda for approval. CITY OF CHANHASSEN ELECTED OFFICIAL OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL POLICY Purpose: The City of Chanhassen recognizes that its elected official may at times receive value from traveling out of the state for workshops, conferences, events and other assignments. This policy sets forth the conditions under which out-of-state travel will be reimbursed by the City. General Guidelines: 1. The event, workshop, conference or assignment must be approved in advance by the City Council at an open meeting and must include an estimate of the cost of the travel. In evaluating the out-of-state travel request, the Council will consider the following: · Whether the elected official will be receiving training on issues relevant to the city or to his or her role as the Mayor or as a council member; · Whether the elected official will be meeting and networking with other elected officials from around the country to exchange ideas on topics of relevance to the City or on the official roles of local elected officials. · Whether the elected official will be viewing a city facility or function that is similar in nature to one that is currently operating at, or under consideration by the City where the purpose for the trip is to study the facility or function to bring back ideas for the consideration of the full council. · Whether the elected official has been specifically assigned by the Council to visit another city for the purpose of establishing a goodwill relationship such as a “sister-city” relationship · Whether the elected official has been specifically assigned by the Council to testify on behalf of the city at the United States Congress or to otherwise meet with federal officials on behalf of the city. · Whether the city has sufficient funding available in the budget to pay the cost of the trip. 2. No reimbursements will be made for attendance at events sponsored by or affiliated with political parties. 3. The city may make payments in advance for airfare, lodging and registration if specifically approved by the council. Otherwise all payments will be made as reimbursements to the elected official. 4. The City will reimburse for transportation, lodging, meals, registration, and incidental costs using the same procedures, limitations and guidelines outlined in the city’s policy for out-of-state travel by city employees. 5. Receipts are required for lodging, airfare, and meals and should accompany an expense report form. The expense report form shall be submitted to the Finance Department for payment. 6. The city will not reimburse for alcoholic beverages, personal telephone calls, costs associated with the attendance of a family member, rental of luxury vehicles, meal expenses included in the cost of registration, or recreational expenses such as golf or tennis. MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Director DATE: November 17, 2005 SUBJ: Comprehensive Plan Update/System Statements While the comprehensive plan update is not due until 2008, the System Statements are out and if the City disagrees with the elements we need to have them resolved. Attached are the system statements which include Population, Households, Employment, Growth Management, Transportation, Wastewater and Regional Parks. I will review the findings of the statements with the City Council at the work session on November 28th. g:\plan\ka\2008 comp plan\cc wrkss11-28-05.doc System Statement City of Chanhassen Following the January 2004 adoption of the 2030 Regional Development Framework, and the more recent adoptions of the Transportation Policy Plan, the Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the Regional Parks Policy Plan, the Metropolitan Council is issuing system statements pursuant to state statute. Receipt of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers communities’ obligations to review and, as necessary, amend their comprehensive plans within the next three years. The complete text of the 2030 Regional Development Framework as well as complete copies of the recently adopted metropolitan system plans are available for viewing and downloading at http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/framework/timeline.htm. Paper copies are available by calling the Council’s Data Center at 651-602-1140. Metropolitan system plans are long-range comprehensive plans for the regional systems – transportation and airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space, along with the capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service, transportation and regional recreation open space. System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communities prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: Within three years following the receipt of the metropolitan system statement, every local governmental unit shall have prepared a comprehensive plan in accordance with sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 and the applicable planning statute and shall have submitted the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to section 473.175. Local comprehensive plans will be reviewed by the Council for conformance with metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies and compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units. The system statement includes forecasts at densities that assure regional growth is achieved consistent with adopted policies. These forecasted densities help ensure regional services and costly regional infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible, and that development and growth within the metropolitan area occur in a coordinated manner. The system statement also contains an overview of the transportation and aviation, transit, wastewater, and regional parks system plan updates, and system changes affecting each community. Forecasts. The following forecasts are part of the 2030 Regional Development Framework (adopted January 14, 2004 and updated on August 24, 2005). They are used by the Council to plan for its regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts. However, given the nature of long-range forecasting, the Council will maintain an on- 2 going dialogue with communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems. Forecast of population, households and employment: Revised Development Framework 1990 2000 20102020 2030 Population 11,732 20,32127,50034,500 38,000 Households 4,016 6,91410,20012,800 14,800 Employment 6,105 8,50113,00015,200 15,600 The Council forecasts growth at appropriate densities for communities in order to protect the efficiency of wastewater, transportation and other regional system investments, and to help ensure the metropolitan area can accommodate its projected growth by the year 2030. Growth management. The Regional Development Framework sets an overall minimum residential density standard of 3 to 5 units per acre in developed and developing areas where urban service is located or planned. The average minimum standard of 3 units per acre is important to the efficient use of regional systems, including wastewater system investments. Communities that significantly over-utilize or under-utilize regional systems can cause inefficiencies in the use of regional resources. Additionally, achieving housing at these density levels may help communities meet their obligations under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to plan to and address their housing needs. Geographic planning area. The city of Chanhassen is designated as a “developing community” geographic planning area in the 2030 Regional Development Framework. Geographic planning areas are shown on the 2030 Planning Area map. The planning area sets overall densities that the planned development patterns in your community can be expected to achieve. (If there are discrepancies between the 2030 Framework Planning Area map, and the metropolitan systems plans because of adjustments that occurred subsequent to the adoption of the 2030 Regional Development Framework document, communities should follow the specific guidance contained in this system statement.) As Chanhassen plans for current and future residents, it should focus on protecting natural resources, ensuring sufficient public infrastructure, and developing transition strategies to increase density and encourage infill development. Developing communities are also encouraged to preserve areas for post-2030 growth, where appropriate. Specific strategies for developing communities are found on page 28 of the 2030 Regional Development Framework. 3 System statement review process. If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions about this system statement, we urge you to contact your sector representative, Tom Caswell, 651 602-1319, to review and discuss potential issues or concerns. The Council and local units and districts have historically resolved questions about forecasts and other components of the system statement through discussions. Request for hearing. If a local governmental unit or school district and the Council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or district may by resolution request that a hearing be conducted by the Council’s Land Use Advisory Committee or by the state Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes section 473.857, the request shall be made by the local unit or district within 60 days after receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council within 60 days, the statement becomes final. System statement issue date: The official date of the issuance of this system statement is September 12, 2005. T-1 Transportation System Statement-- Chanhassen Key Changes in the Plan The revised Transportation Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council in December 2004, is the metropolitan system plan for airports and transportation with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant elements of the metropolitan system plan and highlights those elements that apply specifically to your community. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire Transportation Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy documents, including the Aviation Policy Plan, to ensure your communitys local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire revised Transportation Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning Handbook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council are available online at the Metropolitan Councils Web site: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/framework/timeline.htm. The Aviation Policy Plan, adopted in 1996, is not available electronically, but a copy can be obtained by contacting the Metropolitan Councils Data Center at 651-602-1140. The revised Transportation Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: • The planning period has been extended from 2025 to 2030 • No significant increase in the level of transportation funding was assumed. • The expenditures shown in the Transportation Policy Plan must be constrained by the level of funding that is anticipated. However, the revised plan also examined two alternative scenarios what could be built if highway revenues were increased by 30% over the next 25 years, and what it would cost to provide enough additional capacity to hold congestion to the 1998 levels. • The highway expansion projects shown in the plan have changed little since the 2001 plan, due to this lack of additional resources. (See Fig 4-11 for highway expansion proposals.) Metropolitan Highway System Plan investment priorities no longer contain the Improvements category. Most improvement corridors are now designated Management corridors. • The new investment timing provisions are contained in the Plan. Table 4-11 contains projects in Mn/DOTs Highway Work Plan (scheduled in 2009-2013) construction, reconstruction, and bridge replacement greater $10 million. Table 4-12 contains Regional Priority Project to move into the 10-Year Highway Work Plan, if there are resources available in the 2005-2009 time period. • Funds have also been allocated to obtain right of way for new crossings of the Mississippi River between NW Hennepin and Anoka Counties and of the Minnesota River in the vicinity of Chaska. Construction dollars for these projects are not foreseen before 2030. • Chapter 5 contains new policies and procedures on managing the scope, cost and revenue sources of projects to insure that sufficient resources are available to implement the regions transportation priorities as shown in this plan. This includes procedures to manage the use of T-2 Federal High Priority Project (HPP) funds and matching funds for these federal dollars. The Council and Mn/DOT will monitor scope and costs to ensure major projects continue to meet regional objectives in a cost effective manner. • The plan envisions significant improvements in the bus system, including new express bus routes, arterial corridor enhancements, suburb-to-suburb service, transit stations, park-and- ride lots and other features. The goal is to increase transit ridership 50 percent by 2020 and double it by 2030. • The plan proposes additional express commuter bus corridors as well as enhancement and expansion of existing bus service in freeway corridors. Within each corridor, express bus routes will be supported by park-and-ride facilities, circulator networks, and transit advantages. • The plan includes construction of five new transitways on dedicated rights-of-way by 2020 to help slow the growth in traffic congestion and improve mobility, and three additional transitways by 2030. Unlike the 2001 plan, the technology for each corridor was not identified in the Plan; rather the most appropriate and cost-effective mode for any given corridor is best determined after extensive study of the individual corridor. Figure 4-2 (attached) shows the 2030 Transitway System and Express Commuter Bus System. • The plan now includes detailed information on the facilities needed for transit passengers, such as stations and park and ride lots, as well as facilities needed to support the transit system, such as garages and bus layover sites (Figures 4-5 and 4-6). Communities should plan for development and redevelopment around stations and park-and-ride lots. • Policy 18 (previously policy 17) on transportation and land use elements in local comprehensive plans was rewritten and more detail provided in some strategies as to what the Council expects in local comprehensive plans. • The TPP now includes references to the regional aviation system as defined in the Aviation Policy Plan. The 1996 Aviation Policy Plan remains in effect with the exception of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise. These guidelines have been updated and included in the TPP as Appendix H. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community 1. Metropolitan Highways • Metropolitan highways and regional highway investment priorities for 2030 are shown in Figure 4-11. The city should refer to Tables 4-9 through 4-12 for major highway projects and proposed timing. The only metropolitan highways located within Chanhassen is TH 212 and new TH 212, the existing TH 212 will become a minor arterial. 2. Transit Routes and Facilities Chanhassen is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. Chanhassen is within Market Area III. Service options for Market Area III include peak-only express, small vehicle circulators, midday circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. T-3 Chanhassen should identify existing transit service (available on the Councils website) and desired future transit service options consistent with the Transportation Policy Plans transit system service areas (Table 4-1 and Appendix M). Regular route transit service is provided by Southwest Metro Transit. Dial-a-ride service is provided by Carver Area Rural Transit. Chanhassen should list transit corridors (express commuter bus corridors and dedicated right-of- way corridors) and identify opportunities to promote higher density initiatives along dedicated transit corridors (see Figure 4-2). Chanhassen should identify existing transit passenger and support facilities and future improvements to and expansion of these facilities. Passenger and support facilities include shelters, transit centers, stations, and park-and-ride lots. Park-and-ride lots are located at Market Boulevard & Pauley Road and TH 101 & TH 212, which is programmed for replacement. 3. Aviation Plan and Facilities The TPP/APP includes policies and text on protection of the region’s airspace resources. The airspace policy states that both Federal Aviation administration (FAA) and MnDOT Aeronautics safety standards must be a major consideration in the planning, design, maintenance and operation of air transportation facilities and services. There are no existing or planned aviation facilities within Chanhassen. However, each community has a responsibility to include airspace protection in its comprehensive plan. The protection is for potential hazards to air navigation including electronic interference. Airspace protection should be included in local codes/ordinances to control height of structures, especially when conditional use permits would apply. The comprehensive plan should include policy/text on notification to the FAA as defined under code of federal regulations CFR - Part 77, using the FAA Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration". Instructions can be found at www.faa.gov/arp/ace/part77.cfm. Flying in the metro region involves all types of aircraft including amphibian and float-equipped planes. Communities should recognize, for purposes of safe use of surface waters and compatible land use, that certain public waters within the seven-county metro area are designated by MnDOT Aeronautics as permitted seaplane use areas under state Rules. For a listing of authorized operating areas and other relevant information please refer to the following web site: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/8800/2800.html. T-4 Figure 4-2 2030 Transitway Corridors T-5 Figure 4-5 Transit Passenger Facilities T-6 Figure 4-6 Transit Support Facilities T-7 Figure 4-11 2030 Constrained Metropolitan Highway System Plan Investment Priorities T-8 Table 4-1 Transit Market Area Features and Improvements Market Areas Land Use Pattern Service Options Service Characteristics I Highest concen- trations of activity, housing and jobs Regular-route locals, all- day expresses, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors,) ridesharing Frequencies: 5-15 minute local and circulator Span of Service: 18-24 hours, 7 days per week Access: Locals spaced 0.25-0.5 mile apart with 8-10 bus stops per mile II Moderate concen- trations of jobs, housing and activities Regular-route locals, all- day expresses, small- vehicle circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors,), ridesharing Frequencies: 15-30 minute or 30-60 minute depending on land use pattern Span of Service: 12-20 hours per day, 7 days per week Access: Locals spaced 0.5-1.0 mile apart with 6-8 bus stops per mile III Generally lower concentrations with intermittent pockets of moderate concentrations (pockets would receive highest service levels) Peak-only express, small vehicle dial-a-ride, midday circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors,), ridesharing Frequencies: Peak-period-only expresses, 1-2 hour midday frequencies, dial-a-ride advance registration Span of Service: 10-14 hours per day, weekdays and limited weekends Access: Services tied to park-and- ride lots and hubs IV Lowest concentrations of housing and jobs Dial-a-ride, volunteer driver programs, ridesharing Frequencies: As needed Span of Service: 8-10 hours per days, weekdays Spacing: Services tied to park-and- ride and park-and-pool lots T-9 Appendix M. Regional Transit Standards Transit Market Areas While several factors influence the propensity to use transit, the primary predictors of transit productivity are density of origination and destination. There are four categories of transit markets in the metropolitan area. Transit markets in the Twin Cities are identified using four primary criteria: 1) population density, 2) employment concentration and job density, 3) trip volumes and patterns, and 4) transit dependent segments of the population. Different types and levels of transit services should be used for each transit market area. The region has four distinct market areas. Transit Market Area I has the highest density of population and employment, and is able to effectively support frequent regular route transit service. Because this is the most productive transit service area in the region, it should also be the area that receives a prioritized investment of transit resources. Transit Market Area Area Characteristics Area I Population Density = 15 or more persons/acre (or) Job Density = 50 or more jobs/acre and 10,000 more contiguous jobs Area II Population Density = 9 to 14.9 persons/acre augmented by contiguous High Transit Dependency areas Area III Population Density = 5 to 8.9 persons/acre (excluding isolated pockets) augmented by: (a) Contiguous areas with Job Density = 10 to 49 jobs/acre and 3,000 or more contiguous jobs Or (b) Contiguous areas with Major Travel destinations: 50 or more non-home bound trips/acre Area IV Population Density less than 5 persons/acre Pockets Areas meeting at least one of the following: 1. Population Density = more than 5 persons/acre (isolated pockets only) 2. Job Density = 10 to 49 jobs/acre and 3,000 or more contiguous jobs (isolated pockets only) 3. Major Travel destinations: 50 or more non-home bound trips/acre (isolated pockets only) 4. High Transit Dependency areas (isolated pockets only) Transit Market Area II has high to moderate population and employment densities yielding a market area that is conducive to regular route operations and also other forms of transit service delivery. The lower population and employment densities of Transit Market Areas III, IV, and Pocket areas increase the complexity and challenge of matching transit service to transit need. Due to the lower concentrated demand, it becomes more difficult to provide efficient transit service at reasonable costs in these areas. In the longer term to meet transit needs in suburban and rural settings, we need to promote the right type of land use and development densities that can sustain transit operations. T-10 Transit Markets/Service Options The table below identifies transit strategies that appear to be most appropriate for the different transit markets that are in the metropolitan area. The service delivery strategies presented are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Detailed analysis of specific communities within the metropolitan area may generate other creative means of delivering effective transit services. Transit Market Area Suggested Service Type Suggested Service Characteristics Area I Primary emphasis on big bus/regular route service complemented by paratransit service. Downtown area circulators possible. Orientation Focus on both CBDs Availability Up to 24 hours/day and 7 days/week Access Route spacing (.25 .50 miles) with 8-10 bus stops per mile Frequency Generally 5 15 minutes Area II Primary emphasis on big bus/regular route service complemented by paratransit service. Neighborhood circulators should tie in with limited stop regular route service. Orientation Link CBDs/suburban transit stations and centers Availability Up to 20 hours/day and 7 days/week Access Route spacing (0.5 1.0 miles) with 6-10 stops per mile Frequency Generally 15 30 minutes Area III A mix of big and small bus/regular route and community circulator service complemented by paratransit service. Community circulators should tie into regular route regional service at a transfer point. Orientation Link CBDs/suburban transit stations and centers Availability Up to 18 hours/day and Up to 7 days/week Access Route spacing (0.5 1.5 miles) with 6-10 stops per mile Frequency Generally 30 60 minutes Area IV Primary emphasis on: 1) small bus/dial-a- ride service providing county or rural circulation, and 2) community bus service tied to major park-and-ride facilities to create travel volumes. Orientation Suburb to suburb and central cities Availability Peak-period express and midday circulators; weekday only Access Express routes tied to major park-and-rides/circulators link to transit stations and centers Frequency Advance registration for dial- a-ride services Pockets Primary emphasis on 1) small bus service providing community local or dial-a-ride circulation, and 2) commuter bus service may have localized service in addition to linking with major park-and-ride facilities to create travel volumes. Orientation Localized Availability Varies by pocket; primarily weekday service Access Door-to-door or modified circulation; express routes primarily tied to park-and-ride facilities Frequency Up to 2 hours for circulator services. Advance registration for dial-a- ride T- 1 1 Tr a n s i t S e r v i c e D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s A c o n s i s t e n t s e t o f t r a n s i t s e r v i c e d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s e n s u r e s r e gi o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d c o n s i s t e n c y . R e g i o n a l d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s are cu s t o m - t a i l o r e d f o r e a c h t r a n s i t m a r k e t a r e a . Ar e a I A r e a I I A r e a I I I A r e a I V P o c k e t s Tr a n s i t S e r v i c e O p t i o n s Re g u l a r R o u t e Se r v i c e s C o n s i d e r e d : Ex p r e s s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Y e s Ra d i a l Y e s Y e s Y e s N o N o Cr o s s t o w n Y e s Y e s Y e s N o N o Ci r c u l a t o r D o w n t o w n N e i g h b o r h o o d C o m m u n i t y S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c Li m i t e d St o p Y e s Y e s Y e s N o S p e c i f i c Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l P u b l i c No No Sp e c i f i c Ye s Yes Me t r o Mo b i l i t y Y e s Y e s Y e s N o S p e c i f i c Se r v i c e S p a n Re g u l a r R o u t e Da y s a n d T i m e s o f S e r v i c e : * Ge n e r a l A v a i l a b i l i t y U p t o 2 4 h o u r s U p t o 2 0 h o u r s U p t o 1 8 h o u r s U p t o 1 4 h o u r s U p t o 1 4 h o u r s Ex p r e s s P k / D a y / N t / W k e n d P e a k / S p e c i f i c P ea k / S p e c i f i c P e a k O n l y P e a k O n l y Ra d i a l P k / D a y / N t / W k e n d Pk / D a y / N t / W k e n d Pk / D a y / N t / S p e c i f i c N / A N / A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r P k / D a y / N t / W k e n d P k / D a y /N t / W k e n d P k / D a y / S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c Li m i t e d S t o p Pe a k / S p e c i f i c P e a k / S pe c i f i c P e a k / S p e c i f i c N / A N / A Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l P u b l i c N/ A N/ A Sp e c i f i c Pk / D a y / S p e c i f i c P k / D a y / S p e c i f i c Me t r o M o b i l i t y P k / D a y / N t / W k e n d P k / D a y / N t / W k e n d P k / D a y / N t / W k e n d S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c Se r v i c e L e v e l s Re g u l a r R o u t e (M i i n i m u m F r e q u e n c y f o r N e w / E x i s t i n g R o u t e s : * + Ex p r e s s 1 5 P e a k / 6 0 D a y 3 P k T r i p s / 6 0 D a y 3 Pk T r i p s / S p e c i f i c 2 P e a k T r i p s 2 P e a k T r i p s Ra d i a l 15 D a y / 3 0 N i g h t 3 0 D a y / 6 0 N i g h t 6 0 D a y / S p e c i f i c N/ A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r 3 0 D a y / 6 0 N i g h t 3 0 D a y / 6 0 N i gh t 6 0 D a y / S p e c i f i c 6 0 D a y / S p e c i f i c 6 0 D a y / S p e c i f i c Li m i t e d S t o p Sp e c i f i c h Sp e c i f i c Sp e c i f i c N/ A Specific Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l P u b l i c N/ A N/ A Sp e c i f i c Sp e c i f i c Specific Me t r o Mo b i l i t y S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c * M i n i m u m s e r v i c e l e v e l s m u s t b e j u s t i f i e d ; w i t h l o a d i ng s t a n d a r d s / c o n n e c t i v i t y d i c t a ti n g f r e q u e n c y a b o v e m i n i m u m . + I n s e r v i c e s w i t h 1 5 m i n u t e o r l e s s f r e q u e n c y , c l o c k e d h e a d w a y s ( o r c o n s i s t e n t d e p a r t u r e t i m e s ) s h a l l b e e m p h a s i z e d . T- 1 2 Ar e a I A r e a I I A r e a I I I A r e a I V P o c k e t s Ro u t e S p a c i n g Re g u l a r R o u t e Ac c e p t a b l e R a n g e : Ex p r e s s S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c S p ec i f i c S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c Ra d i a l .2 5 - . 5 0 M i l e s . 5 0 - 1 . 0 M i l e s . 5 0 - 1 . 5 M i l e s N/ A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r . 5 0 - 1 . 0 M i l e s 1 . 0 - 2 . 0 M i l e s Sp e c i f i c N/ A Specific Li m i t e d St o p S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c N / A N / A Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l Pu b l i c N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Me t r o Mo b i l i t y N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Bu s S t o p S p a c i n g Re l a t e s t o l o c a l p i c k - u p p o r t i o n o f t h e r o u t e Re g u l a r R o u t e Ma x i m u m A l l o w a b l e : * Ex p r e s s 8 p e r M i l e 8 p e r M i l e 8 p e r M i l e P& R o r 8 p e r M i l e P & R o r 8 p e r M i l e Ra d i a l 8 p e r M i l e 8 p e r M i l e 8 p e r M i l e N/ A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r 8 p e r M i l e 8 p e r M i l e 8 p e r M i l e N/ A 8 per Mile Li m i t e d St o p S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c N / A N / A Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l Pu b l i c N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Me t r o Mo b i l i t y N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A * A n a l l o w a b l e e x c e p t i o n t o s t a n d a r d s m a y be C B D s a n d m a j o r t r a f f i c g e n e r a t o r s . Bu s S t o p S i t i n g Re g u l a r R o u t e Ne a r s i d e s t o p s a r e p r e f e r r e d i n m o s t a r e a s . I n C B D s a nd o t h e r h i g h c o m m e r c i a l d e n s i t y a r e a s , w h e r e t r a f f i c m o v e m e n t s ar e m a j o r i m p e d i m e n t s t o s m o o t h b u s o p e r a t i o n s , f a r - s i d e / m i d - b l oc k s t o p s a r e g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r r e d . I n d i v i d u a l s t o p s i t e s mu s t b e e v a l u a t e d f o r : 1 ) t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s i n a r e a ( i . e . , r i g h t t u r n s , m e r g i n g , e t c . ) ; 2 ) c u r b a v a i l a b i l i t y ( s e e s t o p d i m e n s i ons ta b l e b e l o w ) ; a n d 3 ) g e n e r a l s u i t a b i l i t y f o r s t o p ( i . e ., c u r b c u t s , A D A c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , o b s t r u c t i o n s , e t c . ) . Bu s S t o p D i m e n s i o n s + M i x e d U s e S t o p S m a l l B u s O n l y S t o p Ne a r - s i d e S t o p 10 0 f t . 75 f t . Fa r - s i d e S t o p 12 0 f t . 9 0 f t . Mi d - B l o c k S t o p 15 0 f t . 1 1 0 f t . + B u s s t o p s w h i c h h a v e m u l t i p l e b u s e s s t o p p i n g a t t h e s a m e t i m e r e q u i r e m o r e s p a c e . Pa s s e n g e r W a i t i n g S h e l t e r W a r r a n t Ce n t r a l C i t i e s Al l O t h e r A r e a s Re g u l a r R o u t e ≥40 p e a k h o u r b o a r d i n g s ≥25 p e a k h o u r b o a r d i n g s T- 1 3 Ar e a I A r e a I I A r e a I I I A r e a I V P o c k e t s Br a n c h W a r r a n t Ro u t e p r o d u c t i v i t y m e a s u r e d a s p a s s e n g e r s p e r r e v e n u e h o u r f o r e x p r e s s a n d p a s s . P e r r e v e n u e m i l e Re g u l a r R o u t e M i n i m u m R e q u i r e m e n t : Ex p r e s s S p e c i f i c 1 5 P P R H & 3 0 1 5 P P R H & 3 0 1 5 P P R H & 3 0 1 5 P P R H & 3 0 Ra d i a l 1. 5 r t e . p r o d . & 3 0 1 . 0 r t e . p r o d . & 3 0 0 . 5 r t e . p r o d . & 6 0 N / A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r 1 . 5 r t e . P r o d . & 3 0 1 . 0 r t e . p r o d . & 3 0 0 . 5 r t e . p r o d . & 6 0 N / A N/A Li m i t e d S t o p 3 0 P e a k F r e q u e n c y 1 5 P P R H & 3 0 1 5 P P R H & 3 0 N/ A 15 PPRH & 30 Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l Pu b l i c N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Me t r o Mo b i l i t y N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Di r e c t n e s s Ex p r e s s s e r v i c e i s m e a s u r e d f r o m b e g i n n i n g o f r o u t e a n d c o m p a r e d w i t h a v e r a g e a u t o t r a v e l t i m e ( i n c l u d i n g 1 0 m i n . re m o t e p a r k i n g t i m e ) . L o c a l s e r v i c e i s m e a s u r e d u s i n g p a s s e n g e r b o a r d i n g s p e r m i l e o p e r a t e d . Re g u l a r R o u t e Mi n i m u m R e q u i r e m e n t: Ex p r e s s 1 . 3 5 A v g A u t o T i m e * 1 . 3 5 A v g A u t o T i m e * 1 . 3 5 A v g A u t o T i m e * 1 . 2 5 A v g A u t o T i m e * 1 . 3 5 A v g A u t o T i m e * Ra d i a l 1. 0 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + 1 . 0 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + 0 . 5 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + N / A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r 1 . 0 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + 1 . 0 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + 0 . 5 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + N / A N/A Li m i t e d S t o p 1 . 0 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + 1 . 0 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + 0 . 5 r o u t e p r o d u c t . + N / A N/A * A v g . a u t o t i m e i n c l u d e s a s s u m p t i o n o f 1 0 m i n u t e r e m o t e p a r k i n g r e l a t e d t i m e . + I n c r e a s e i n t r i p r i d e s m u s t b e g r e a t e r t h at t h r u r i d e s i n c o n v e n i e n c e d ( i . e . : n e w r i d e s > t h r u r i d e s ) . I f d e v i a t i o n i s m o r e th a n 3 m i n u t e s , n e w t r i p r i d e s m u s t e x c e e d e x t r a t i m e f o r t h ru r i d e r s ( i . e . , n e w r i d e s > ( t h r u r i d e r s X e x t r a t i m e ) ) . Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l P u b l i c N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Me t r o Mo b i l i t y N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Ne t w o r k T r a n s f e r C o n n e c t i v i t y Re g u l a r R o u t e Ne w R o u t e D e s i g n C o n s i d e r a t i o n : ( i n c l u d e s p e a k a n d m i d d a y s e r v i c e o n l y ) Ex p r e s s 3 - 1 5 w / a l l o t h e r s S p e c i f i c S p e c i f i c 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s & P & R 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s & P & R Ra d i a l 3- 1 5 w / a l l o t h e r s 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s N/ A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r 3 - 1 5 w / a l l o t h e r s 3 - 1 0 a t hu b s 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s & P & R Li m i t e d S t o p Sp e c i f i c Sp e c i f i c 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s & P & R N / A 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s & P & R Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l P u b l i c N/ A N/ A 3- 1 0 a t hu b s 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s 3 - 1 0 a t h u b s Me t r o Mo b i l i t y N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A T- 1 4 Ar e a I A r e a I I A r e a I I I A r e a I V P o c k e t s Cu s t o m e r “ P e a k P e r i o d ” L o a d G u i d e l i n e s Gu i d e l i n e s a r e b a s e d o n m a x i m u m l o a d p o i n t o f r o u t e a n d w o u l d b e s o m e w h a t m o r e f l e x i b l e o n f r i n g e o f p e a k p e r i o d . Re g u l a r R o u t e M i n i m u m a n d M a x i m u m T a r g e t s o n a C o n s i s t e n t B a s i s : * Ex p r e s s 7 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 7 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 7 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 7 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 7 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . Ra d i a l 85 - 1 2 5 % o f S e a t C a p . 8 5 - 1 2 5 % o f S e a t C a p . N / A N/ A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r 7 5 - 1 1 5 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . N / A N/ A N/A Li m i t e d S t o p 8 0 - 1 1 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 8 0 - 1 1 0 % o f S e a t C a p . N / A N/ A N/A * M a x i m u m c u s t o m e r l o a d a v e r a g e o v e r 1 5 m i n u t e p e r i o d . Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l P u b l i c N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Me t r o Mo b i l i t y N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Cu s t o m e r “ O f f - P e a k ” L o a d G u i d e l i n e s Gu i d e l i n e s a r e b a s e d o n m a x i m u m l o a d p o i n t o f r o u t e . Re g u l a r R o u t e M i n i m u m a n d M a x i m u m T a r g e t s o n a C o n s i s t e n t B a s i s : + Ex p r e s s 6 5 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 6 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . Ra d i a l 60 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 6 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . N / A N/ A N/A Cr o s s t o w n / C i r c u l a t o r 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . N / A N/ A N/A Li m i t e d S t o p 6 5 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 6 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . 5 0 - 1 0 0 % o f S e a t C a p . + M a x i m u m c u s t o m e r l o a d a v e r a g e o v e r 3 0 m i n u t e p e r i o d . Pa r a t r a n s i t Ge n e r a l P u b l i c N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Me t r o Mo b i l i t y N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A T-15 Transit Performance Standards The primary performance standards to measure service are Subsidy per Passenger and Passengers per In-Service Hour. Performance standards are used to evaluate the relative productivity and efficiency of the services provided. To be responsible and dynamic, a transit system must consistently measure and adjust service in unproductive routes and address insufficient service in productive areas. The use of two regional performance standards provides better insight into the operational and financial performance of individual routes and services. Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy or net cost is the difference between the total cost of providing service offset by revenue from passenger fares. Subsidy per passenger represents the net cost divided by the number of passengers using the service. This standard identifies services that are not operating within efficiency ranges and focuses corrective actions for those services. Subsidy thresholds are determined by calculating the non-weighted subsidy per passenger average within each service classification plus fixed percentage deviations from that average. Threshold No. Level of Subsity per Passenger Performance Monitoring Goal Possible Action 1 20 to 35% over peer average For Quick Review Minor Modifications 2 36 to 60% over peer average For Intense Review Major Changes 3 More than 60% over peer average For Significant Change Restructure/Eliminate Passengers per In-Service Hour The passenger per in-service hour standard establishes a minimum threshold of performance for light rail transit, big bus fixed route service, small bus fixed route service and paratransit operations. Passengers per in-service hour represents the total passengers carried divided by the in-service time. This measure is most often calculated at the route level, but can also be measured less rigidly at a trip level. Type of Service Average Passengers per In-Service Hour Minimum Passengers per In-Service Hour Light Rail Transit ≥70 ≥50 Big Bus Fixed Route All Day ≥20 ≥15 Big Bus Fixed Route Peak Only ≥20 N/A Small Bus Fixed Route ≥9 ≥5 Small Bus Non-Fixed Route ≥3 ≥2 Other/Rideshare/Shared Ride Taxi ≤2 N/A T-16 Table 4-11 MnDOT Highway Work Plan, 2009-2013 Major Construction, Reconstruction and Bridge Replacement Greater Than $10 Million Project Cost Estimates Highway Project Description Program Construction Fiscal Year Design Estimate ($000) R/W Estimate ($000) Year-of- Construction Estimate ($000) Construction Engineering Estimate ($000) Total Project Cost ($000) 35E I-94 to Maryland Ave. in St. Paul, grading, surfacing, brs., etc., including Cayuga Br. and Phalen Blvd. connection MC 2010 7,687 Limited 76,755 6,140 90,571 35W At Lake St. in Minneapolis, reconstruct inter- change (Ph. 1) MC 2009 1,160 Contin- uous/ Major 11,600 928 13,688 35W At Lake St. in Minneapolis, reconstruct inter- change (Ph. 2) MC 2010 1,785 Contin- uous/ Major 17,850 1,428 21,063 36 At Lexington Ave.. in Roseville, replace Br. 5723 and reconstruct interchange MC 2009 1,380 Limited 13,804 1,104 16,289 100 36th St. to Cedar Lake Rd. in St. Louis Park, grading, surfacing, Brs., etc. for 6-lane freeway MC 2011 6,150 Contin- uous/ Major 61,500 4,920 72,570 169 Near CSAH 6 in Belle Plaine, grading, surfacing, Br., etc. for new interchange MC 2010 1,904 Limited 19,040 1,523 22.467 694 E of I35W in Arden Hills to E of Lexington Ave.. in Shoreview, grading, surfacing, Brs., etc. to add third lane and correct weave at TH 10/51 MC 2012 6,960 Minimal/ Spot 69,596 5,568 82,123 TOTALS 27,015 270,145 21,611 318,771 T-17 Table 4-12 Regional Priority Projects to Move into 10-Year Highway Work Plan, 2005-2009 Highway Project Description I-35E TH 110 to TH 5, add one through lane I-494 TH 55 to I-94, add one through lane TH 610 CSAH 81 to I-94, Complete four-lane freeway Total: $ 300 million W - 1 Wastewater System Statement -- Chanhassen Key Changes in the Plan The revised Water Resources Management Policy Plan, adopted by the Metropolitan Council in March 2005, is the metropolitan system plan for metropolitan wastewater services with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant elements of the metropolitan system plan and highlights those elements that apply specifically to your community. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy documents to ensure your community’s local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning Handbook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council are available online at the Metropolitan Council’s Web site: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/framework/overview.htm. The revised Water Resources Management Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: • A coordinated approach to water supply planning in the metropolitan area with the goal of providing for a sustainable, reliable and secure supply of high quality water to support orderly economic growth and maintain the region’s high quality of life. • An approach to surface water management that ties together the control of pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Local surface water management plans will be reviewed for impacts on the regional wastewater system. • A policy under which the Council will consider acquiring and operating local wastewater treatment plants in rural growth centers upon request where enough growth is projected to make it economically feasible for the Council to become involved. • A plan that provides for cities to reduce excessive inflow and infiltration (I/I) of clear water into the metropolitan sewer system. A financial assistance/surcharge program is included that will provide a funding mechanism to help solve the I/I problem. • A policy that continues to require inspections of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) at least once every three years by trained individuals. In addition, the Council has added further clarification on what is needed in a community’s local ISTS management program. W - 2 System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community 1. Metropolitan Sewer Service Forecasts: The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Chanhassen as contained in the adopted Water Resources Management Policy Plan are listed below. These forecasts are for sewered development. The sewered housing forecasts were estimated based on SAC data, annual city reports, current trends and other information relating to your community. The wastewater flows are based on historical wastewater flow data and the projected sewered housing and employment data. Table 1 Year 2010 2020 2030 Sewered Population 26,800 34,500 38,000 Sewered Households 9,900 12,800 14,800 Sewered Employment 13,030 15,200 15,600 Average Annual Wastewater Flow (MGD) 2.92 3.49 3.71 Allowable Peak Hourly Flow (MGD) 7.59 9.07 9.28 The flow projections represent the Council’s commitment to a level of service, assuming that the Council’s underlying demographic forecasts are maintained. Adjustments may be required based on verified growth or lack of growth. The city should contact Council staff to discuss any proposed adjustments. Flow projections do not represent an allocation of interceptor capacity except in the event a temporary system constraint occurs. The community must strive to keep its wet weather flows within the allowable peak hourly rate. At a minimum the Council will reevaluate flow projections every five years. Moreover, the Council will also continue to monitor each city’s flow on a continuous basis and note any significant changes. The Council will use these growth and wastewater flow forecasts to plan all future interceptors and treatment work needed to serve your community. The Council will not design future interceptor improvements or treatment facilities to handle peak hourly flows in excess of the allowable rate for your city. Chanhassen, through its comprehensive planning process, must decide the location and staging of development, and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to serve this development. If you plan a total wastewater flow from your community in excess of the Council’s forecasts, your assumptions will be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the capacity or operation of the metropolitan system. You should also note that urban development at overall densities that are substantially lower than identified for your community in the Council’s Growth Management Strategy W - 3 Section of the Systems Information Statement will also be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service. Description of Metropolitan Disposal System Serving your Community: The attached map shows the location of the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) serving your community. The following paragraphs contain information on the existing and planned metropolitan facilities serving your community: The wastewater flow from the City of Chanhassen is treated at the Blue Lake WWTP located within Shakopee, MN. There are many projects scheduled for the Blue Lake WWTP through 2030. These projects will provide additional capacity at the plant as well as improve its ability to meet required permit standards. The City of Chanhassen is served by Council interceptors 8253-358, 7017-2, 7017-3 and 7017-4. Interceptor 8253-358 currently has a design capacity of 16.1 mgd to provide for the long-term needs of the city. The Council has a proposed Lake Ann Interceptor relief project scheduled to support the long-term needs of the city schedule for construction between 2011 and 2020. The city needs to verify its long-term needs as part of its comprehensive plan update. If necessary, detailed information regarding metropolitan facilities is available from the Council’s Municipal Services Section by calling the staff at (651) 602-1005. Increases in growth rates and resulting increases in flow beyond those shown in Table 1 may result in short-term capacity limitations within the MDS. Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Goal The Council’s Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that the Council will establish I/I goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the MDS. Communities that have excessive I/I in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the excessive I/I by 2012. The Council will begin the implementation of an I/I assistance/surcharge program in 2007. The monies collected from the communities with excessive I/I may be used by those communities to remove I/I from their systems. The Council will limit increases in service within those communities that have not met their I/I goal(s) starting in 2013. The Council will meet with the community and discuss this alternative before it is implemented. This time period may be shorter if excessive I/I jeopardizes the Council’s ability to convey wastewater without an overflow occurring. In this case the Council may limit increases in service within those communities that have excessive I/I immediately upon notification to the community. The Council plans to implement a wastewater rate demand charge program, starting in 2013, for those communities that have not met their I/I goals. These revenues will be used to help defray the cost of providing attenuation within the MDS to recover the capacity lost to excessive I/I. W - 4 The I/I goal established for the City of Chanhassen is the allowable peak hourly flow rate as shown in Table 1 and varies based on annual average flow. The Council’s metering program shows that the city’s 2004 annual average flow was 2.15 mgd. The current I/I goal for your community is an allowable peak hourly flow of 5.97 mgd. The city is currently meeting its I/I goals. Specific Requirements for the Sewer Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan The Council has completed a review of the current information in the city’s existing comprehensive plan and has determined that the following information is needed to update the sewer element of the city’s comprehensive plan/local sewer policy plan: • A sewer map showing the city’s existing service area and proposed trunk sewer system through 2030 and ultimate sewer service area. • A table showing the projected population, households, employment and flow forecasts by interceptor for the city for 2010, 2020 and 2030. • A description of the city’s I/I program. What efforts does the city make in the maintenance of its sanitary disposal system? Does the city prohibit the connection of sump pumps, rain leaders and passive drain tile from the sanitary sewer system? 2. Management of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires the sewer element (local sewer policy plan) of the local comprehensive plan to describe the standards and conditions under which the installation of individual sewage treatment systems will be permitted and to the extent practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private systems. The new Water Resources Management Policy Plan states that the appropriate density for development with individual sewage treatment systems depends on the suitability of the soils to treat wastewater and whether space is available for a primary and back up drainfield. It is the Council’s position that all municipalities and counties allowing individual sewage treatment systems should incorporate current MPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapter 7080) as part of a program for managing individual sewage treatment systems in the sewer element of their local comprehensive plan and implement the standards in issuing permits. Chanhassen should adopt a management program consistent with state rules. An overview of Chanhassen’s management program must be included in the community’s local comprehensive plan update. If adequate information on the management program is not included; the comprehensive plan will be found incomplete for review until the required information is provided to the Council. 3. Surface Water Management In 1995, Minnesota Statutes section 473.859, subd. 2, was amended to make the local surface water management plan required by Minnesota Statutes section 103B.235 a part of W - 5 the land use plan of the local comprehensive plan. Section 103B.235 provides that a local surface water management plan should be prepared once a watershed plan for the area has been approved. Section 103B.235 also generally identifies the content requirements for the plan. The local surface water management plan must be submitted to both the watershed management organization(s) within whose watershed the community is located and to the Metropolitan Council for its review. For guidelines on the contents of local surface water management plans, please refer to Appendix B2-b of the Council’s Water Resources Management Policy Plan. Council records indicate that Chanhassen is in the Carver County Watershed Management Organization and the Lower Minnesota River, Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts (see attached map). The Carver County watershed plan was approved by BWSR in 2001. The Lower Minnesota River, Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek and Minnehaha Creek watershed plans were approved by BWSR in 1999, 1997, and 1997 respectively. Therefore, Chanhassen was required to update its local surface water management plan by the end of 2004. The plan should be submitted to the Council for its review concurrent with the review by the watershed management organizations. Failure to have an updated local surface water management plan consistent with the local surface water management plan content requirements found in Appendix B2-b of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan will result in a metropolitan system impact. The Council also updated its priority lake list that was first developed in the 1980s as part of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan update. There are 5 priority lakes, Ann, Lotus, Christmas, Minnewashta, and Riley, in Chanhassen. The Council uses the priority lake list to focus its limited resources. The list is also used in the environmental review process. Where a proposed development may impact a priority lake, the project proposer must complete a nutrient budget analysis for the lake as part of the environmental review process. Advisories 1. Water Supply Planning Minnesota Statutes section 473.859, subd.3 requires cities with a municipal water supply system to develop a water supply and conservation plan and submit it to the Council for its review. Communities serving more than 1,000 people are required by Minnesota Statutes section 103G.291 to submit the emergency and conservation plan to the Department of Natural Resources. The guidelines for water supply plan updates were released in 2005. Chanhassen to update its local water supply plan consistent with the new guidelines and submit the water supply plan to the Council for its review. For contents of local water supply plans, please refer to Appendix B2-c of the Council’s Water Resources Management Policy Plan. W - 6 W - 7 P-1 Regional Parks System Statement City of Chanhassen Key Changes in the Plan The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council in June 2005 is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant elements of the metropolitan system plan and highlights those elements that apply specifically to your community. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy documents to ensure your community’s local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning Handbook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council are available online at the Metropolitan Council’s website: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/framework/timeline.htm. To meet the needs of the region in 2030, the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes the following changes to the current regional parks system. ! Designate two existing county parks and three trails as "regional." # In Washington County, Pine Point Park # In Ramsey County, Tony Schmidt Park # In Ramsey County/St. Paul, three regional trails – Trout Brook, Summit Avenue, and Lexington Parkway ! Acquire and develop three new parks. Search areas include: # Northwestern Anoka County # Empire Township in Dakota County. Please note that the Metropolitan Council approved a park master plan and a boundary for the park has been established. # Blakeley Township in Scott County ! Acquire and develop seven new trails. Search areas include: # The Crow River, in Carver County and Three Rivers Park District # Both a north/south and an east/west trail traversing Dakota County # An east/west trail traversing Scott County # In Three Rivers Park District, a trail connecting parts of Baker Park Reserve; a trail connecting Baker and Crow-Hassan Park Reserves; and a trail connecting Crow-Hassan and Elm Creek Park Reserves ! Acquire land within the current boundaries of 30 existing parks and four trails. P-2 ! Acquire natural-resource lands adjacent to six existing parks and six existing trails. To meet the needs of the region beyond 2030, the Council proposes four new regional parks or reserves and three new trails be acquired. These parks and trails would not be developed until after 2030, but the opportunity to acquire them will likely be lost if the lands aren't identified and purchased before 2030. The goal is to complete the acquisition of the regional park system and secure opportunities for future generations. Search areas include: ! Parks – Miller Lake area and Minnesota River Bluff and Ravines in Carver County; southwestern Dakota County; and Cedar Lake area in Scott County. ! Trails – northwestern Anoka County; central to south Carver County; and Minnesota River to Spring Lake in Scott County. P-3 Figure 1: All additions and changes to Regional Park System Plan P-4 1. Regional Park System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Regional parks and trails in your community The following regional parks and trails within Chanhassen as contained in the adopted 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan are listed below. Table 1: Regional Parks and Trails in Chanhassen Regional Park or Trail Unit Name Master plan boundary of unit is set. Comprehensive plan should acknowledge boundary Master plan boundary is not set. Comprehensive plan should acknowledge general location with final boundary or alignment subject to park or trail master plan Lake Minnewashta Regional Park X Southwest Hennepin LRT – South Regional Trail X Highway #101 Regional Trail X Highway #5 Regional Trail X Twin Cities and Western Regional Trail X Lake Minnewashta Regional Park – This is an existing park with an approved master plan. The park’s boundary as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city’s comprehensive plan. Marty Walsh, Carver County Parks Director is the contact person for Regional Park facilities in Chanhassen. He can be contacted at 952-466-5252. Southwest Hennepin LRT (South) Regional Trail – This is an existing trail that is managed by Three Rivers Park District. The trail’s alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city’s comprehensive plan. Contact Jonathan Vlaming at Three Rivers Park District for further information. He can be reached at 763-694-7632. Highway #101 Regional Trail – There is a potential master plan boundary adjustment to this trail corridor. The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes six regional park boundary adjustments and seven regional trail boundary adjustments. One of the potential trail adjustments is in the Seminary Fen area along the proposed trail corridor. The primary purpose of the park and trail boundary adjustment is to protect regionally significant natural resource areas with significant recreation potential which are adjacent to the park or trail. A master plan has not been completed for this trail but there may be a role for the county parks to partner with others in some protection of this high quality natural resource area. Any change to this park boundary will result from a master plan process for the trail corridor. The County will continue to work with other partners on this project. The general alignment of the trail as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. Marty Walsh, Carver County Parks Director P-5 is the contact person for Regional Park facilities in Chanhassen. He can be contacted at 952- 466-5252. Highway #5 Regional Trail - A master plan has not been completed for this trail. The general alignment of the trail as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. Marty Walsh, Carver County Parks Director is the contact person for Regional Park facilities in Chanhassen. He can be contacted at 952-466-5252. Twin Cities and Western Regional Trail - This is a proposed regional trail that would follow the existing railroad corridor. Since there is an active railroad operating on the tracks, trail planning would not take place until there is a change in the status of the use of the tracks. However, the general alignment of the trail as shown in Figure 2 should still be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. Marty Walsh, Carver County Parks Director is the contact person for Regional Park facilities in the Chanhassen, he can be contacted at 952 466-5252. State and Federal lands The following State and Federal park and open space units provide outdoor recreation opportunities and natural resource conservation for the public and are considered part of the regional recreation open space system. These facilities as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city’s comprehensive plan. - Minnesota Valley State Trail and Recreation Area – Minnesota DNR - Raquet Wildlife Refuge – Minnesota DNR - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife and Recreation Area – US Fish & Wildlife Service - University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum – University of Minnesota For more information about the DNR sites, call 651-296-6157. For more information about the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge call 952-854-5900. For more information about the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, call 952-443-1400. Figure 2 shows the location of all parks and trails listed above in Chanhassen, plus any parks and trails adjacent to the city's border. P-6 Figure 2: Map of Chanhassen with regional parks and trails in the city and adjacent to the city 1993 - 2002 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS 11/17/2005 Final Plat GROSSROWWETLAND/MISC.PARKNETTOTALGROSSNETLand UseNOTES CASE PROJECT NAME Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARYACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY Density ACRES SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 93-1 SUBHighlands of Lake St. Joe 360.411.54 024.06330.92 1.37 lowShoreland district 93-4 SUBWindmill Run 17.923.37 0 014.55351.95 2.41 lowfarm field 93-8 SUBRoyal Oaks Estates 132.2 0 010.8231.77 2.13 lowfarm field 93-10 SUBLotus Lake Woods 4.470.320.3 03.8571.57 1.82 lowwooded/wetland 93-11 SUBOaks at Minnewashta 35.839 3 815.83451.26 2.84 low 93-12 SUBTower Heights 7.10.6 0 06.5131.83 2.00 lowinfill development 93-14 SUBShenandoah Ridge 11.53.5 0 08201.74 2.50 low 93-15 SUBChurch Road 3.30 0 03.341.21 1.21 lowinfill development 93-16 SUBTJO 1.060 0 01.0632.83 2.83 lowinfill development 93-25 SUBMinger Addition 9.952.08 0 0.157.72171.71 2.20 lowlarge areas of tree preservation 94-1 SUBMinnewashta Landings 19.71.7 0 018271.37 1.50 lowbeachlot/shoreland district 94-3 SUBOlivewood 25.954.614.8 06.5580.31 1.22 lowshoreland district, wetlandsredone 1998 94-4 SUBShadow Ridge 15.992.151.9 011.94171.06 1.42 low3.9 acre outlot yet to be platted 94-5 PUDMission Hills/Single-family 7.10 0 07.1162.25 2.25 low 94-7 SUBWoodridge Heights 37.93.676.7 027.53461.21 1.67 lowwetlands/topography 94-8 SUBCreekside 39.54.25.7 524.6441.11 1.79 lowAdjacent to Bluff Creek corridor 94-10 SUBBrenden Pond 23.33.67.2 012.5210.90 1.68 lowsteep slope, large wetland 94-13 SUBPointe Lake Lucy 18.151.635.62 010.9191.05 1.74 lowShoreland district 94-15 SUBHobens Wild Woods Farm 1.870 0 01.8731.60 1.60 lowinfill development 95-10 SUBForest Meadows 20.22.2 0 513190.94 1.46 lowbluff areas 92-4 PUDMeadows at Longacres 951024 0611121.18 1.84 low 93-2 PUDTrotters Ridge 32.57.445.6 019.46491.51 2.52 lowtree preservation/wetlands 91-3 PUDWillow Ridge 30.348.39 017.91371.22 2.07 lowlarge wetland 92-1 SUBStone Creek 8110.040.96 8621411.74 2.27 lowtree preservation/wetlands 92-4 SUBIthilien Addition 91.80.9 06.3171.89 2.70 low 92-5 SUBBluff Creek Estates 61.457.919.7 033.85781.27 2.30 low 93-3 PUDWoods at Longacres 96.7713.110.87 072.81151.19 1.58 lowwetlands/severe topography/woods 93-6 PUDSpringfield 80.820.20.5 5.354.81341.66 2.45 low 95-3 SUBLake Lucy Estates 16.362.084.86 09.42171.04 1.80 lownatural wetlands, topography,redone 1998 95-20 SUBKnob Hill 8.351.10.66 06.59121.44 1.86 lowwetland 95-21 SUBDempsey Addition 5.110.040.96 04.1171.36 1.70 lowwetland 95-22 SUBThe Frontier 8.90.090.2 08.6191.01 1.05 lowBluff area limits development 96-2 SUBOak Ridge of Lake Minnewashta 11.82.1 0 09.7231.95 2.37 low 96-3 SUBSlather Addition 1.220 0 01.2221.64 1.64 lowinfill development 96-4 SUB Melody Hill 4.570.73 0 03.84102.10 2.60 lowinfill development 96-7 SUBArundel 1.320 0 01.3221.52 1.52 lowinfill development 96-8 SUBRice Lake Manor Estates 7.0601.24 05.8220.28 0.34 lowinfill development 96-9 SUBRook Place 1.080 0 01.0821.85 1.85 lowinfill development 96-15 SUBBlack Walnut Acres 3.280 0 03.2810.30 0.30 lowinfill development 96-18 SUBSong Addition 8.301.75 06.5510.12 0.15 lowinfill development 97-1 SUBHighover Addition 48.9913.832.83 032.33541.10 1.67 lowsteep slopes, trees, wetlands 97-11 SUBMonson, Sunridge Addition 50 0 0520.40 0.40 lowlarge lot development 98-1 PUDLynmore Addition 7/12/19996.390.832.12 0.642.881.25 2.86 lowBluff Creek overlay 98-10 SUBEric Peterson 6.3203.59 02.7320.32 0.73 lowInfill develpment - Rice Marsh Lake 99-3 SUBNickolay 3.700.91 02.7920.54 0.72 lowinfill development - Rice Marsh Lake 99-4 SUBBrozorick 1.440 0 01.4421.39 1.39 lowInfill develpment Lotus Lake 99-5 SUBSmith Hill Addition 5/10/19991.330 0 01.3321.50 1.50 lowInfill develpment 99-10 SUBArrowhead Development10/23/20000.910 0 00.9122.20 2.20 lowInfill develpment 99-11 SUBSandy Point 12/13/19991.470 0 01.4721.36 1.36 lowInfill develpment - Lotus Lake 00-1 SUB Marsh Glen 7/24/200013.411.451.91 010.05191.42 1.89 lowinfill development - Rice Marsh Lake 00-2 SUBLucas Igel Addition 7/23/20011.090 0 01.0921.83 1.83 lowinfill development - Lotus Lake 00-3 PUDSummerfield 2nd Addition10/23/200050.95 0 04.05102.00 2.47 lowInfill development, 0 affordable 00-8 SUBArvidson's Addition 11/27/20002.470 0 02.4741.62 1.62 lowinfill development 00-9 SUBWhite Oak Addition 10/9/20003.40.6 0 02.851.47 1.79 lowInfill development, Lake Minnewashta 2000-15Ashling Meadows 4/9/200140.036.394.780028.86511.27 1.77 lowsignificant topography/wetlands, infill development 2001-3Big Woods 8/27/20016.31.1 0005.291.43 1.73 lowsteep slope, lake shore, stream 2001-6Tristan Heights 6/11/20011.150 0001.1521.74 1.74 lowbluff on one lot 2001-10Lake Lucy Ridge 5/28/200218.572.47.16 9.01170.92 1.89 lowwetlands, bluff 2002-2Knob Hill 2nd 7/22/20027.591.220.57005.891.19 1.55 lowLakeLucy,steep slopes 2002-4 Hidden Creek Estates 7/22/200222.2838.50010.78200.90 1.86 lowwetlands, limited upland 2002-2 PUDVasserman Ridge 7/22/200268.768.6927.921.94030.21841.22 2.78 lowBluff Creek Overlay, 1.94 ac.commercial 2002-6Boyer Lake Minnewashta Add.8/26/200213.591.262.343.25 6.74100.74 1.48 lowwetland,Lake Minnewashta, beachlot of 3.25acres 2002-7Willow Ridge 3rd Addition5/28/20022.090 0002.0920.96 0.96 lowInfill, steep slope 2003-7Coutryside 6/14/20045.931.020.58 4.33101.69 2.31 lowwetlands, Lake St. Joe 2003-12Burlewood 12/8/20035.171.75 3.4291.74 2.63 low 04-10Walnut Grove 2nd 6/14/20043.090.51.1 1.4941.29 2.68 lowBluff Creek, wetland 04-05Settlers West 7/12/200444.564.17 0 16.1324.26481.08 1.98 lowbluffs 04-03Kenyon Bluff 4/12/20042.160.240.37 1.5531.39 1.94 lowbluff 04-23Lotus View Addition 1/10/20052.83 2.8320.71 0.71 LOWShore land district 04-26Frontier 2nd Addition 8/23/20042.610 0 2.6151.92 1.92 lowbluff 04-31Hidden Creek Meadows6/13/200519.242.025.96 11.26211.09 1.87 lowwetlands, creek 04-36Pinehurst 3/14/200527.624.280.14 23.2431.56 1.85 lowwetlands, woods, ravine 04-43Yoberry Farm (Highcrest)4/11/200535.795.544.53 0.3925.33571.59 2.25 lowwetlands, slopes, existing houses 05-02Crestview 5/9/20053.360.6 2.7651.49 1.81 lowexisting house 05-05John Henry 4/11/20051.19 1.1932.52 2.52 lowexisting house 05-08Fox Den 4/25/20052.770.64 2.1362.17 2.82 lowHwy 101 05-14Lake Harrison 7/12/2005626.1720.91.534.4228.98380.61 1.31 lowwetlands, bluff, existing house, water treatment plant site 05-21Frontier 3rd Addition 7/25/20050.77 0.7722.60 2.60 lowbluff 05-25Minnewahsta Creek Hills 3rd8/22/20051.4 1.432.14 2.14 lowprivate street 05-26Harvieux Addition 9/29/20051.990 0001.9931.51 1.51 lowlake shore 05-36Bluff Creek Twinhomes 10.32.692.28 5.33181.75 3.38 lowBluff Creek primary zone 05-37Stonefield 17.632.23 15.4301.70 1.95 lowsteep slopes, wetland finger 0 #DIV/0!#DIV/0! SUBTOTAL 1,445.65 199.41 235.84 6.72 53.03 950.65 1,821.00 PERCENT 13.8%16.3%0.5%3.7%65.8%AVG1.26 1.92 MULTI-FAMILY 94-5 PUDMission Hills/Multi-family 47.1811.65.87 029.712084.41 7.00 medium192 affordable units 94-18 PUDAutumn Ridge 28.134.29 0 023.841404.98 5.87 medium82 affordable 92-3 PUDOak Pond/Oak Hills 24.192.091.8 020.31415.83 6.95 medium90 affordable 94-7 SPPrairie Creek Townhomes 4.60 0 04.6245.22 5.22 medium0 affordable 87-3 PUDPowers Place 9.70 0 09.7484.95 4.95 medium0 affordable 95-7 SPLake Susan Hills Townhomes 7.290 0 07.29344.66 4.66 medium0 affordable 95-8 SPCentennial Hills 2.20 0 02.26529.55 29.55 high39 affordable 95-1 PUDNorth Bay 52.12.928.66 26.3814.14761.46 5.37 high35 affordable 96-3 PUDTownhomes at Creekside 7.032.18 1 0.213.64253.56 6.87 medium0 affordable 96-4 PUDWalnut Grove (sf, sm lot + twnhou 05/27/9749.86.810.2 042.792474.96 5.77 medium128 affordable 99-9 SPRLake Susan Apartment Homes6/28/19999.90 0 09.916216.36 16.36 mixed0 affordable, Villages on the Ponds 99-19 SPRPowers Ridge Apartments 12/11/200021.340 1 020.3434416.12 16.91 high0 affordable 99-2 PUDArboretum Village 5/14/2001120.9321.5926.292.916.953.253422.83 6.42 medium156 affordable ownership, 2.9 acres commercial 2001-13 SPPresbyterian Homes 10/14/20025.1100.3004.8116131.51 33.47 Mixed UseVillages on the Ponds 2002-7 SPBuilding C Villages on the Ponds10/14/20023.1900102.194514.11 20.55 Mixed UseVillages on the Pondsapproved for 54 units 2003-3 PUDHighlands on Bluff Creek6/15/20046.520.861.83.86162.45 4.15 low densityBCO 05-11Liberty on Buff Creek91.0211.4540.0639.514464.90 11.29 mediumBCO, 8.89 ac. wetland/3.16 ac. bluff 24-MayLiberty at Creekside36.0114.1130.91383.83 4.47 mediumBCO SUBTOTAL526.2464.7991.093.943.49322.972662 PERCENT12.3%17.3%0.7%8.3%61.4%AVG5.06 8.24 TOTALS 1,971.89 264.20 326.93 10.62 96.52 1,273.62 4,483 PERCENT 13.4%16.6%0.5%4.9%64.6%AVG2.27 3.52 g:/plan/Past,Present,Future/density MEMORAMDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director DATE: November 17, 2005 SUBJ: Retail Market Analysis Proposal As the City continues to develop, there is additional pressure to make land use changes. This issue was recently examined in the Town and County project. With the update of the comprehensive plan and construction of Highway 212, I think it is important the City re-examine the city’s commercial and industrial land use. The McComb Group, Ltd. specializes in market studies for public and private uses. They have been used by developers in Chanhassen and are highly recommended. Attached are their proposal and a summary of the study that they conducted for Prior Lake. On Thursday, November 17, this proposal was presented to the Executive Board of the Chamber of Commerce. They were enthusiastic about the project and will likely be participating in the funding. This item was not budgeted in 2005. Staff can provide funding source alternatives. At the work session I will be prepared to discuss the study in greater detail and answer any questions the Council may have. g:\plan\ka\marketing study\worksession cc 11-28-05.doc INVITATION TO TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY Annually, the City of Chanhassen, in cooperation with our local business community, sponsors a series of special events. The city’s next special event is the “Tree Lighting Ceremony,” which will be held on Saturday, December 3 at City Center Park. Parents and children a like are invited to attend this festive event and make sure you bring along your family and friends. The event runs from 5:00-6:00 pm. Events include…refreshments, Christmas Caroling, and a special visit from Santa Claus. This entire event is free and no pre-registration is required! 2005 Environmental Excellence Awards The Environmental Excellence Awards are presented by the City of Chanhassen to recognize environmental improvements and stewardship throughout the community. These awards are designed not only to recognize achievement, but also to communicate new ideas and encourage the members of the Chanhassen community to make a difference in their world. Dry Cleaning Station Receiving: Rich Westerberg Project: Environmentally-friendly dry cleaning business As nearly everyone can tell you, the dry cleaning business is generally not thought to be environmentally friendly. The Dry Cleaning Station decided that they could do something about that. This innovative dry cleaning business uses GreenEarth solvents in their cleaning process. These solvents are environmentally-friendly, non-hazardous and clean clothes as well as the more damaging products commonly used in the industry. They have also implemented company-wide recycling of their cardboard boxes, accept hangers brought to them by customers and use dry cleaning bags made from recycled plastic. Thanks to Dry Cleaning Station, Chanhassen residents have a local alternative for environmentally-friendly dry cleaning. Mark Taintor Project: Bike commuting For the bike commuter, the commute is the best part of the day. For the car commuter, the commute is often the worst part of the day. Just ask Mark Taintor. Mark has been commuting by bike to and from work for four, almost five, years. He started out locally, commuting 2.5 miles each way in town. After a change in his job location his commute increased significantly to 8.5 miles each way, but he continued to commute by bike. He does this year round and while there are many benefits to biking, some personal, some environmental and some economical, a few people have questioned his sanity as he would prepare to bike off into a snow-filled street. Whatever his reasons for dedication to bike commuting, Mark is a positive impact on the community and we hope that he may inspire someone else to leave their keys at home and hop on their bike. G:/plan/js/EC/EE Award/Projects/EEaward presentation 05 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Kelley Janes, and Todd Hoffman ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INTERVIEW. The City Council interviewed Shirley McGee for a vacant position on the Environmental Commission. JOINT MEETING WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL STAFF REGARDING INFILTRATION/INFLOW. Kyle Colvin and Bryce Pickart from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) presented a power point presentation outlining their Preliminary Inflow/Infiltration Surcharge Program and it’s impacts on the City of Chanhassen. Mayor Furlong asked for the results of the previous studies that have been conducted and how many communities exceed MCES’ design standards. Kyle Colvin reviewed the costs associated with excess peak flows and costs needed to reduce Inflow/Infiltration at the source. Todd Gerhardt clarified that the system is currently adequate and that it is future growth that is the concern. Kyle Colvin went on to explain the Inflow/Infiltration surcharge program, metering system, implementation strategies and surcharge methodology. He noted the rain event on September 4th caused the city of Chanhassen to exceed their design standard resulting in a $1.5 million surcharge. He explained how the numbers were arrived at and how the appeal process works for the City. Mayor Furlong questioned why the City of Chanhassen was being penalized for a rain event isolated to the city. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on whether the system was sized for the region or community. Bryce Pickard explained how the program is intended to work. Todd Gerhardt asked if MCES has taken into account soil types, i.e. clay soils versus sandy soils, noting his fear that the City of Chanhassen will have the same problems 10 years from now after investing the million dollars because of the clay soils in the area. Councilman Labatt asked what the numbers would be if the 100 year storm events are taken out of the equation and using averages rather than peak numbers. Todd Gerhardt asked what other options or program are available. Kyle Colvin explained the City has the option to come up with it’s own work plan for review by MCES. He outlined the schedule of public meetings being held on this program. UTILITY RATE STUDY. Greg Sticha reviewed that the City Council had asked Ehlers and Associates to study the city’s current utility fees and future projects to determine if the current fees and hook-up charges are appropriate for planning expansions, reconstruction and maintenance of the current water, sanitary sewer and storm water systems. He introduced Jessica Cook who reviewed the results City Council Work Session – November 14, 2005 2 of their study and outlined the responsibility and options available to the City Council, taking into account assumptions and changes in rates through 2016. Councilman Peterson asked Ms. Cook to explain when the last time the study was updated and what changes have occurred since that time. Councilman Lundquist asked about the impacts of pushing the second water treatment plant construction further out in the future. The work session was recessed at 7:00 p.m.. It was reconvened at 8:35 p.m.. TH 212 PROJECT: DISCUSS MNDOT’S PROPOSED CHANGES AT BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. Paul Oehme showed drawings and discussed MnDot’s proposed realignment of Bluff Creek Drive for the south project limit to Pioneer Trail. Mayor Furlong noted that this realignment was a better design than the one previously proposed. Todd Gerhardt asked for clarification on the proposed signalized intersections and the possibility of working with MnDot to locate a satellite fire station in this area of the city. 2006 BUDGET PRESETNATIONS: FIRE: Chief Gregg Geske presented the highlights of the 2006 fire department budget and comparisons to the 2005 budget. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on how the Relief Association fund impacts the numbers. Chief Gregg Geske explained how the incentive base call pay will be implemented next year. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on how that system works. Todd Gerhardt complimented Chief Geske on the number of women in the department. ADMINISTRATION: Justin Miller presented the Administration budget for 2006. Councilman Lundquist commended staff on implementing the health benefits plan. FINANCE: Greg Sticha presented the 2006 proposed budget for the Finance Department. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the contractual service numbers and ACH for utility bills. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Greg Sticha passed out a handout detailing all the proposed projects for the 5 year CIP from 2006 through 2010. Councilman Lundquist asked to see a priority ranking for 2006 projects. Mayor Furlong noted that he thinks the process is working well with the 5 year capital improvement program. Councilman Peterson asked for more time to study the handout. Greg Sticha asked City Council members to e-mail him with any specific questions prior to the next meeting on this item. The City Council discussed the time line for the City Manager’s review process. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 9:30 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, and Kate Aanenson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Jeffrey Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Ken Wencl 8412 Great Plains Boulevard Mark Undestad Planning Commission Julianne Ortman 8698 Chanhassen Hills Drive North PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 24, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 24, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 18, 2005 -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 1, 2005 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 25, 2005 b. Dave Huffman Race Committee: Accept $500 Donation for Eagle Scout Projects. c. Ice Skating/Hockey Rinks: Approval of 2005-06 Rink Policy. f. Lake Harrison Development: Approve Expenditure of Funds for Trunk Watermain Improvements, Project 05-13. City Council Summary – November 14, 2005 2 g. TH 212: Approve Work Orders for Betterments, Project 03-09. h. Environmental Excellence Awards: Approval of Recommendations. i. Environmental Commission: Appointment to Fill Vacancy. j. Troy & Virginia Kakacek: Request for Hard Surface Cover Variance, 380 West 86th Street, Planning Case 05-18. l. City’s Health Insurance Provider: Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with the Appletree Institute. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Julianne Ortman talked about issues that will be discussed at the upcoming legislative session such as the Kelo vs. New London case which talks about eminent domain and asked that the City Council hold a work session on this item. Secondly, inviting all veterans and current military personnel to the American Legion on Thursday night at 7:00 where the Department of Veteran’s Affairs from the State of Minnesota will be there to make a presentation about recent changes in the law, the current law, benefits and to answer questions. D. PINEHURST: APPROVE AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, PROJECT 05-03. Councilman Lundquist pulled this item off the consent agenda to change the extension time line from one year to 6 months or until July 1, 2006. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve a 6 month extension to July 1, 2006 as an addendum to the Development Contract for Pinehurst, Project 05-03. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. TH 212/312 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 03-09, 04-05, & 04-06, ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL. Paul Oehme introduced Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates who updated the council on actions taken since the public hearing, noting changes to the assessment roll for the Laurent and Arthur B. Johnson properties. Councilman Lundquist asked staff to explain if there would be any impact on the total cost of the project that would sway the assessments as the Fox and Dorsey properties go through their design process. Resolution#2005-93: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt the assessment roll for the TH 212/312 Improvement Project Nos. 03-09, 04-05, and 04-06. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. City Council Summary – November 14, 2005 3 2005 MUSA IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I, PROJECT 04-05: A. ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL. B. AWARD OF CONTRACT. C. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION CONTRACT. Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates presented information on the assessment roll and the bid results for the award of contract. Paul Oehme presented the staff report on the construction inspection contract. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following items for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project 04-05: a. Resolution#2005-94: Adoption of the Assessment Roll. b. Resolution#2005-95: Award of Contract to Veit & Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,615,113.00. c. Approve Consultant Work Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $187,000 for construction phase services for Phase I of the 2005 MUSA improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT, 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE, PLANNING CASE 05-32. Kate Aanenson presented background information for this item and an update from the Planning Commission. Mayor Furlong asked about drainage in the area. Councilman Peterson asked if the applicant agreed with the staff’s recommendation. Jennifer and Clint Hurt outlined their proposed changes to reduce the amount of hard surface coverage. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on the retaining walls and the setback issue. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table the request for an after the fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback variances for a Sport Court at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Planning Case 05-32. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND A FOUR SEASON PORCH, 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE. Kate Aanenson presented this item and an update from the Planning Commission. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the status of the acquisition of property from the applicant’s neighbors. Mayor Furlong clarified zoning standards. Councilman Labatt clarified the time line of when the additions were done to the house. The applicant, Cindy Koenig explained what work has been done to minimize the variance request. City Council Summary – November 14, 2005 4 Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage and utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 1(k). SPALON MONTAGE: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO PLACE A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE FO THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA, 600 MARKET STREET, KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-33. Councilman Lundquist expressed concern with this item being on the consent agenda and asked for further clarification from staff on the request. Cindy McDonald, Kraus-Anderson Realty reiterated that as the owner and manager of the building they did not want to see any additional signage on the second story except for Spalon Montage. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the request from Spalon Montage for a site plan amendment to place a wall sign outside of the approved sign band area, 600 Market Street, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, Planning Case 05-33. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist provided an update on the Highway 41 river crossing meetings. Mayor Furlong presented an update on the Veteran’s Day activities he attended at Chaska Middle School West and the other at Chapel Hill Academy. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt reported on the break in’s at Summerwood Apartments and Lake Susan Apartments. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. City Council Summary – November 14, 2005 5 Prepared by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, and Kate Aanenson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Jeffrey Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Ken Wencl 8412 Great Plains Boulevard Mark Undestad Planning Commission Julianne Ortman 8698 Chanhassen Hills Drive North PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 24, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 24, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 18, 2005 -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 1, 2005 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 25, 2005 b. Dave Huffman Race Committee: Accept $500 Donation for Eagle Scout Projects. c. Ice Skating/Hockey Rinks: Approval of 2005-06 Rink Policy. f. Lake Harrison Development: Approve Expenditure of Funds for Trunk Watermain Improvements, Project 05-13. g. TH 212: Approve Work Orders for Betterments, Project 03-09. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 2 h. Environmental Excellence Awards: Approval of Recommendations. i. Environmental Commission: Appointment to Fill Vacancy. j. Troy & Virginia Kakacek: Request for Hard Surface Cover Variance, 380 West 86th Street, Planning Case 05-18. l. City’s Health Insurance Provider: Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with the Appletree Institute. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: We do have tonight Senator Julianne Ortman is here. Good evening Senator. Julianne Ortman: Hello Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Always a pleasure to be back in the City Council. I’m really here as a citizen. I’m happy to be here. I’m excited about what’s going to be happening at the State Capitol over the next year. I’m probably the first one to say that to you, but one of the issues that we are talking about at the State Capitol are issues that you’re talking about here in the city and I wanted to begin the dialogue tonight which would involve…Kelo case. Kelo versus New London…and it talks about eminent domain and under what circumstances the city may condemn property for uses within the city, and these are very controversial issues to be sure. The City of Watertown actually has already adopted a resolution heading off circumstances under which they would take property from residents. Things they would not do so despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, unless there were a public purpose that were clearly enunciated. At the State Capitol there surely are many discussions going on about where we go as a State with this. I think there were a lot of people in Minnesota that were very surprised by that decision and I think you’ll see quite a bit of, a number of proposals, including one that I’m looking at myself working on. And so I wanted to come to the council and ask you for your help. We shouldn’t be passing legislation or the possibility of a Constitutional amendment without discussing these issues with our cities and so I ask you to please keep me in mind when you have discussions about these things and if we couldn’t perhaps put together a work session or something so that we can talk about it on a bigger level than I normally get to talk about these issues. We talk about them at the State Capitol but I’d surely like to have some bigger discussions with members of the community, with members of the council. Perhaps some kind of task force is in order that would help advise me about how best to serve the city and my district when I go back to the Capitol and work on this very important issue. It will come up on the next legislative session so we’ve got about 3 months to get better informed and plan our strategy for what’s coming up. And I think that there is no more fundamental issue when it comes to government than talking about the rights of private property owners and here in Chanhassen I know that’s a critical issue. People buy property here so that they can enjoy and use that property and government shouldn’t interfere with that unless they are very clearly articulated reasons, in my opinion. I think most Minnesotans, most residents in Chanhassen would agree with that premise. Secondly, I want to announce that on Thursday at City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 3 7:00 at the American Legion in Chanhassen we will be hosting the Veteran’s Affairs Department and we sent out invitations and placed ads in all the newspapers, including the Chan Villager to invite all veterans, all active duty military personnel to please come to the Legion at 7:00 on Thursday night. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs from the State of Minnesota will be there to make a presentation about recent changes in the law, the current law, benefits and to answer questions that veterans and active duty military personnel might have. So I invite all of those folks and any other folks that might be interested in those issues to please come to the Legion on Thursday night at 7:00. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you members of the council. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council this evening under visitor presentations? No? Okay. We offer this opportunity each meeting. Everyone is welcome. D. PINEHURST: APPROVE AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, PROJECT 05-03. Councilman Lundquist: Issue here Mr. Mayor was understand they’re looking for an extension on their contract time line with all of the crazy weather we had this fall. My issue is with the extension of a year that some of the things that happened out there, because of the weather had consequences on some of the existing neighborhoods and although the developers, Plowshares guys did a yeomen’s job and really did a nice job of cleaning it up, I’d like to push to get that done a little sooner so members of staff I believe have contacted the developer and they’re amenable to a 6 month extension rather than a year so I would propose the amendment read to extend it 6 months rather than 12 months. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, if we could put July 1st on there as the date on your resolution. Which would be the last paragraph on the resolution where it says November 15th. If we make that July 1 st, 2006. That’s amenable. Councilman Lundquist: That way we also ensure that we get a lot of those things done before the rainy season again in the fall so that the members of Longacres won’t get their retaining walls washed out again. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you’re, Councilman Lundquist then you’ll propose the motion included in the staff report amended to July 1, ’06. Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 4 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve a 6 month extension to July 1, 2006 as an addendum to the Development Contract for Pinehurst, Project 05-03. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. TH 212/312 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 03-09, 04-05, & 04-06, ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. At this time we’d like to just continue with discussion of adoption of the assessment roll for the 312/212 improvements. At the last meeting Jon Horn from Kimley-Horn and Associates gave a presentation on the assessment roll and the project and I’d ask at this time that Jon just finish up with that discussion and update us on new information that we’ve received. Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor and council. As Paul said my name’s Jon Horn. I’m with Kimley-Horn and Associates. Just an update on the assessment information for the Trunk Highway 312/212 project. Specifically these are improvements that the City requested to be built as a part of the MnDot project. The assessment hearing was held on October 24th. At that time assessment objections were filed by four properties that are being assessed for the proposed project. Those four properties are the G & M Laurent Family Partnership property, the Arthur B. Johnson property, the Jeffrey and Terry Fox property and then the Fox Properties LLP property. We’ve gathered additional information on the Laurent family property and the Arthur Johnson property in terms of the amount of their properties that have been acquired by MnDot. As a result of that it’s resulted in a decrease in the assessment amounts for those two properties of basically about $9,000 for each property. In terms of the Fox properties, property owners of those properties are undergoing some concept planning at this time. They have a number of concerns and issues regarding the long term vision of the MUSA improvements in terms of what’s going to happen with the roadway and they’ve raised a number of issues that we’re working with them on. Do not have all those issues resolved yet but we’ll continue to work with the property owners on those property issues here over the next couple of weeks. In response to the changes on the Laurent property and Arthur B. Johnson property, we’ve prepared a revised assessment roll. That revised assessment roll was included in your council packet. The overall financing summary for the project, total project cost is a little over $2.632 million dollars. The assessable component of that is a little over $1.679 million dollars with a city cost of $953 plus or minus thousand dollars. With that staff recommends approval of the assessment roll for the Trunk Highway 312/212 improvements. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No? Councilman Lundquist: Quick question. Or hopefully quick Paul and Kate, as the Dorsey’s and Fox’s have come in and work on their proposals, and minor shifts to the road or other things that may or may not occur in the next 3 to 6 months as they go through their design process, do you see that having much of an impact on total cost of the project that would kind of sway the assessments noticeably? Todd Gerhardt: I’ll handle that one Paul. Right now Phase I of the 2005 MUSA improvements take into account the sewer and the water line construction and those improvements made along City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 5 312. We will be back in front of the City Council probably in February of 2006 to go through these assessment hearings one more time on the, what we call the east/west collector road and over the next 4 months we’ll be meeting with Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Fox’s planners and looking at their concepts and see how they can be incorporated into the road design. Councilman Lundquist: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: And just for clarification, just so I’m not lost here. The item we’re considering right now are specifically related to the 212/312 improvements that we’re working in conjunction with MnDot and then that construction, correct? I think we’re going to hit the Phase, okay. Okay. So I think these have already been ordered, if I’m not mistaken. Councilman Lundquist: …last person to say ditto. Mayor Furlong: You could say ditto. You can say ditto and we’ll be fine. Any other questions on clarification to make sure we understand what we’re doing here? Okay. Alright. Very good. With that I’ll bring it back to council and see if there’s any discussion. Is there a motion to approve staff’s recommendation? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Resolution#2005-93: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt the assessment roll for the TH 212/312 Improvement Project Nos. 03-09, 04-05, and 04-06. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2005 MUSA IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I, PROJECT 04-05: A. ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL. B. AWARD OF CONTRACT. C. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION CONTRACT. Paul Oehme: At this time I’d like to have Jon Horn just give a brief presentation on new information on the MUSA assessment rolls. Just a little background on that project. Jon Horn: Mayor, council, this is going to sound a little bit like a broken record. Very similar to the last process. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, just say ditto. Jon Horn: This is specifically Bid Package 1 and just to refresh your memory, the question was asked regarding what was included as a part of this project. This project is only Bid Package 1 which is just the utilities from Lyman Boulevard down to the east/west collector roadway. At City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 6 this location it does not include the actual construction of the roadway or the utilities in the road. That is part of Bid Package 2. Assessment hearing for these improvements were held also on October 24th. At that time assessment objections were raised by the Fox Properties, the two Fox properties and again similar to the last objections, they have a number of issues regarding what the roadway’s going to look like and how that roadway works within their properties and that is again issues that we will continue to work with the Fox’s on over here over the next couple weeks or couple of months. Final assessment roll’s been included in your package and we are basically at this time requesting that the council approve the assessment roll for the Bid Package 1 of the 2005 MUSA improvements. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? I guess one point of clarification too. It was in the staff report as subsequent to last meeting we did receive as a city the necessary construction easements as well for this project so, appreciate the property owners for their cooperation and working with the city and staff for getting that done as well. Any other discussion? Questions at this point. I’ll bring it to discussion then. Any discussion on this item? Paul Oehme: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. Paul Oehme: We would, the next two items are also related to the 2005 MUSA area. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to talk about (b) and (c) at the same time? Paul Oehme: …just have one vote on it. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Paul Oehme: At this time maybe Jon can just give an update on the bids that we received for this project. Jon Horn: Sure. This item is for the approval of the award of contract for the improvements for the construction of the Bid Package 1. The bids were open for the project on Friday, October 14th. Five bids were received. The lower bidder of Veit & Company, Inc.. Total bid amount of $1,615,113.00. That is less than the engineer’s estimate of $1.76 million dollars. About 8% less. We’ve been, I’ve had conversations with Veit here over the past couple of weeks. They’re still interested in proceeding with the project and are ready to go upon award of contract with the council. At this time we’re just recommending that the contract be awarded to Veit & Company, Inc. in a total bid amount of $1,615,113.00. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? One quick one, in the report it speaks about the Veit & Company having worked with the consulting engineer firm. Is that your firm? Jon Horn: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So you have worked with them on projects of a similar nature? City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 7 Jon Horn: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And how have they performed? Jon Horn: They performed acceptable. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Acceptable, is that a high rating? Is that hard for an engineer to say that? Jon Horn: Sometimes it is, yes but certainly the work that they’ve worked on has been fine. We’ve had no problems with them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Very good. Any other questions with regard to item 3(b) or any discussion at this point on that item? Thank you. Item 3(c) then which is consideration of approval of construction inspection contract. Staff report. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. This item is for the construction, administrative services for the 2005 MUSA improvements Phase I. We, the staff recommend that Kimley-Horn and Associates be awarded this contract. They have worked with the city on the MUSA improvements. Have completed the construction contracts and the bidding of this project and to be consistent and to have good clarity and continuity we recommend that the construction services be awarded to Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $187,000.00. And this also does include soil inspection services for testing agencies as well. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Peterson: Is your inference there that they’re acceptable then? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Councilman Peterson: No questions. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: I’m sure we’re getting a discount since we don’t have to get them up to the learning curve. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I’d just like to note that those services will be assessed back to benefiting properties too. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on this item? Very good. Then is there any general overall discussion with regard to the 2005 MUSA improvements Phase I? This project. Either with regard to adopting the assessment roll, awarding the contract or approval of the construction inspections contract. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 8 Councilman Lundquist: We’ve got the issues with right-of-way and all that, or easements taken care of? Across the Degler property and all that. Todd Gerhardt: For this portion of the project. Phase II we’re still working on a couple of easements there. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions on this? If not, without objection we certainly can handle all three of these items with a single motion. If there is a motion consistent so is there a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation and the assessment roll on each of the items? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation in the packet. Mayor Furlong: For each, 3 (a), (b) and (c). Councilman Lundquist: 3(a), (b) and (c). Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Again hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following items for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project 04-05: a. Resolution#2005-94: Adoption of the Assessment Roll. b. Resolution#2005-95: Award of Contract to Veit & Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,615,113.00. c. Approve Consultant Work Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $187,000 for construction phase services for Phase I of the 2005 MUSA improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT, 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE, PLANNING CASE 05-32. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located off of Mission Hills Circle in the Marsh Glenn subdivision. This subdivision was built, or approved in approximately the year of 2000 and this home was built without the survey showing a sport court on the site. It’s an after the fact variance request. It did not go through any approval process. The variance is for hard surface coverage and side yard setbacks. It did go to the Planning Commission on October 18th. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 9 A public hearing. At that time the Planning Commission recommended 5-0 to deny the request for the 5.4 hard surface coverage. In summary I’ll point out how this house sits on the lot and then go through and show you some pictures. But this is the existing home and this is the sport court. It was recommended here, that’s shown in pink is the elimination to reduce some of the hard surface coverage. You can see on the pictures here where the property line is and the retaining wall going into a portion of that. One of the recommendations was to pull out some of the hard surface coverage and one of them being the patio in the back. Staff has some concerns about that. We have requests all the time that people would recommend taking out their front sidewalk. We believe there’s some reasonable use of property and a sidewalk and sometimes patios coming out of a door like that makes some sense. Some sort of hard surface there when it’s being used as a doorway. Again this came to the city staff via a neighbor’s complaint regarding the size and the location of the sport court, so the applicants again are proposing to remove some of the hard surface but it still would require the variance for total square footage. If you look on the staff report on page 5 of the staff report it goes through the actual square footage of all the area and the, that could be removed including the concrete slab of 120 square feet. Go back to the survey here. The area outside the sport court, and then removing some of the sport court itself to get, but it would still be over but it would meet all the setback requirements and they’re going to remove the boulder wall. You can see there’s a boulder wall on the property line and one extending over which would go into the Mission Hills. Their common area. This property just to the south of that. So discussing with the Planning Commission, they had some concerns about again that size of the patio. One of the issues that we also put in the staff report was regarding drainage and I just wanted to go over that with you briefly. This may be a little hard to read but this is the lot itself. Everything shown in pink drains to that pond. This was the original pond with Mission Hills. It was made larger to accommodate the development of this area but this is a large area that drains into this pond. The homes along the back have the minimum 3 foot from the lowest level. The homes in Mission Hills actually have a greater separation. There’s more bounce on that pond, but this is one of the things that we look at when we have, as we discussed earlier today, the larger rain events. When we were, not only the velocity but the, how fast it’s coming down and the ability for it to actually percolate into the soil when there’s that much hard surface, and those are some of the things that I think was on the Planning Commission’s mind. Looking at that. While this may not be in, by itself so egregious but if you accommodate that all the way around. One of the other questions that was asked to me was, has there been other variances in this immediate area and there hasn’t been in this particular subdivision itself. So with that the Planning Commission did recommend denial. We do have another motion in here for you too if you did choose to approve and that would include eliminating some of the additional square footage. Again one of the concerns that we have is that we have some sort of patio or a landing space coming outside of the, this sliding glass doors out to the back. Any questions? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson, in the storms that we had both Labor Day weekend and early October, were there any issues in this area with the pond? Kate Aanenson: No. Not that we received. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the drainage from here basically runs across the property to the west, is that correct? City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 10 Kate Aanenson: Yes. It would go to the west and actually goes along 101. Then it’s piped underneath 101 and that’s the direction it goes. Mayor Furlong: Eventually down to Lake Susan or down to Bluff Creek? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Down to the creek, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: Kate, in your discussions with them, are they opposed. I know we’ll hear from them in a few minutes but are they opposed to your proposed hard surface cover calculations, the new ones that get you down 27% or not? Kate Aanenson: No, I think they’ve agreed to those. Correct. It’s still over but they’ve agreed to that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, I know the Hurt’s are here. If you’d like to come forward. Can’t wait to talk to the council. Jennifer Hurt: Yeah, I can’t wait to talk. It’s been several months so I’m just, I’m kind of ready to be done with this. Jennifer Hurt, my husband Clint Hurt. Council members, thank you. I want to thank you of course for the time and listening to our request for a variance. We want you to know, and obviously we’re in a little bit of a bind. We hired a licensed contractor back in March of 2005. He assured us that he would take care of everything. Checking in with the City to make sure that we were in compliance with the City. We felt very confident that paying the amount of money that we paid him to build our sport court, and the fact that he was a licensed contractor, that he would get the job done according, in accordance with the City. However we were very let down and we want you to know that first of all we would never build a sport court this large had we known that it would violate city code. We are not looking to be sneaky at all. That was never our intent. But now we have to deal with the fact that our sport court is too big and that is why we are applying for this variance. So at this point what we are requesting is a 2.7% hard surface coverage variance. Our original plan was to remove 8 feet off the south side of the sport court, which is 320 square feet. Removing the concrete slab, which is 120 square feet and removing 128 ½ total square feet of retaining wall. The Planning Commission did not approve of our variance at the October meeting but encouraged us to come with you with our request. After the meeting we sat down with Josh Metzer again and discussed some options and we decided that we, one of the options that he presented to us is that we could remove our patio on the lower level to decrease the amount of square footage but in hearing that, that’s maybe not a great option and after thinking about it, I’m not so sure I want to remove my patio either. We also decided that we definitely could afford the extra 5 foot, or 5 feet of square footage on the west side of the sport court saving us another 260 square feet. If we are not going to be removing a patio we would be very willing to remove the equivalence of the patio surface coverage from our sport court. We are really trying to bring down our hard surface coverage with the above mentioned items so that we can still keep as much of our sport court as possible. We live in a very unique neighborhood. There are 8 houses in our development that are directly City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 11 on the marshland. They are well aware of the fact that when they built their houses they were not allowed to cut down or build anything on that marshland, and we noticed that that is part of the drainage system that drains with our pond. So we feel that maybe our variance could somewhat balance their property. Those neighbors support our variance. Also we know that our drainage flows to an existing pond near us and that this pond can accommodate the additional runoff. We have 16 letters from neighbors who…neighborhood have already used our sport court and we take comfort in knowing that our children are in our back yard rather than a mile away playing in a park. While the parks are very fun to visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh Lake which is accessible via walking trail but approximately a mile away. And Lake Susan Park, which we must cross over Highway 1 and in the near future we know is not going to be a safe thing to do. So you see our intent of installing a sport court was not to increase the value of our home but rather provide a safe place for children to play close to home. We’ve also tried to gain support from the townhome owners to the south of us and in talking with some of the townhome neighbors, there were several people that spoke. One woman said to leave it all. I don’t have a problem with it. Another woman said there’s nothing better than to hear children laughing. And yet another comment was, it’s nice to see the kids playing off the streets. This is exactly how we feel. We absolutely love our court. In taking the 8 feet off of the south end we can no longer have a short court tennis court, which is one of the things I love. To comply with ordinance requirements you are asking us to cut our sport court from 2,437 square feet to 1,210 square feet. This is less than half. So we’re asking you, how do you play safely in a court that size with more than 3 or 4 people? So the advantage of our sport court being the size that it is, is that many people can benefit from it all at once. We have lots of different things that we have done on the sport court and obviously because of it’s size we’re all able to enjoy it at once. We realize that you’ve had a number of hard surface coverage requests for variances within the past months. We hope that you will consider our request as an individual case. We would like for you to come out and see our sport court before you make your decision so we’re asking that if you aren’t going to approve our variance tonight, that you table it. Thank you. Clint Hurt: The other thing I’d like to bring up, I know that we have pictures of our sport court, is the fact that. Mayor Furlong: If you could speak into the microphone so the people at home. Clint Hurt: Is a fact of a lot of these pictures are taken, our sport court is not totally complete. These rock walls would totally be moved off of the lot line and back onto our property, really butting up to what would be the sport court so the only problem is that we did have the retaining wall in this back side, which we would have removed that anyway so, but with this variance we are going to be taking on all of this back side and the side side of the rocks, and pretty much whatever we can do to kind of be in compliance with the city here. But we would like to keep as much of the sport court as possible and hopefully we’d…and maybe see what else we could do… Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the Hurt’s at this point? Councilman Peterson: Either Kate or you guys. Feel free to respond but if you take out the retaining wall, is the setback issue mitigated or is it still there? City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 12 Jennifer Hurt: No, we are taking an additional 5 feet off of what we had originally planned and so there is not a setback issue at all. We are complying with city easements. We’re complying with side setback. The only thing that we’re not in compliance with is the amount of hard surface coverage. Kate Aanenson: On this side there’s a 5 foot drainage utility easement so that wall’s currently on the property in the easement so there’s a 5 foot easement. So if they were to remove this, just to be clear, then they would be in compliance but it would have to be removed to meet the 10 foot setback. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: When you say remove, the pink shadow there? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: The sport court and then move the rock wall in. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yes. Then you get compliance to get the 10 foot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that’s what you’re proposing? Clint Hurt: That we would do, correct. Mayor Furlong: To do as part of the. Clint Hurt: Yeah, we would take everything away in pink on here. Mayor Furlong: And move the wall back to the outside that side yard setback or that utility easement? Clint Hurt: No, because this back wall here, we’d actually remove it. That whole back wall along the, or that 8 feet. We’d actually move the sport court on the west. The retaining wall on the west. The retaining wall on the south and then up to 10 feet back on the east side of that. Mayor Furlong: Those walls would come out and not be replaced? Clint Hurt: Correct. We would remove it all. Take the rock away. Kate Aanenson: Let me just try to clarify it. There’s a couple things we’re talking about. One is setbacks. In order to meet the setbacks the area in pink would have to be removed. Then the second issue is impervious surface, which even if they removed everything in pink they would still be over. I guess the position’s is on the patio coming out of the porch. We need to make a house inferior. We believe that may not be the best thing to select to take out. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 13 Jennifer Hurt: But again we’re trying to be, we’re trying to cooperate with the city because that was one of the recommendations that was given to us. From Josh Metzer, so we’re trying to comply and that’s one of the things we’re sacrificing. Mayor Furlong: But what I heard you say tonight too is if you kept that you would take. Jennifer Hurt: Well it sounds like they probably maybe don’t want us to do that. Kate Aanenson: I’m not saying that. That’s the council’s decision. I’m just saying as a staff, as it would be if you were going to take out your front sidewalk, I’d just don’t think that’s a good solution to solving a problem. Jennifer Hurt: And honestly I would like to keep my patio. So I would, I mean we would be willing to take the equivalence of that off of this, the west side of our sport court. Mayor Furlong: Additionally? Jennifer Hurt: Yes. So that would be approximately another 2 feet off of this side. Councilman Peterson: Had you contemplated or pursued acquiring additional property so you wouldn’t have to take out the? Clint Hurt: Ah yes we have. Jennifer Hurt: Yes we have. And that wasn’t an option. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But you do have I think an unusual driveway shape too. Is that correct? Jennifer Hurt: Yes we do and that was another option Josh Metzer gave to us was that to take off some of the driveway. Unfortunately we have this kind of odd driveway and it curves around and it is rather large, and maybe someone could come and draw sidewalk chalk out there for us to tell us where we could take some. It’s another option for us but the way that our driveway goes, I mean we are driving on our grass all the time anyways. No one can drive out of our driveway backwards the way it is because it’s so curvy. So if someone has a recommendation for us as to where the best place might be to take off of our driveway, we certainly would consider that as well. Councilman Lundquist: Have you had any discussions with that contractor that you hired about responsibility for removing and things? Jennifer Hurt: Yes we have. As far as monetary dissolutions, I guess we haven’t gotten to that point. We were kind of waiting to hear how the variance process went and go from there. He is well aware of the fact that it is his responsibility. He did not check in with the city as he was told, he claims he has never had a problem with the City of Chanhassen. He knew that he did not need a permit and that was one of the things that at the Planning Commission meeting it was City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 14 mentioned that a lot of builders, contractors, people who are doing their own work, kind of stop there at the permit because they know they don’t need a permit, and then they kind of stop and so, and I’m not saying that that’s the fault by all means but it is one of the things that it kind of stops there so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: So a point of clarification? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Labatt: So they take out all the pink stuff, then they’re asking for 2. whatever percent. Jennifer Hurt: It’s approximately 2.7%. Councilman Labatt: Right? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: That’s about half. The pink is about, removes it or cuts it in about half. Mayor Furlong: Of what’s over on the hard surface but it also eliminates the need for a side yard setback. Councilman Lundquist: And the easement and all that good stuff. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, any other questions at this time? Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Any follow-up questions for staff? If not we’ll bring it back to council for discussion. Thoughts on this one. Councilman Lundquist: I actually took a drive out there this afternoon. You can see it pretty good from the Mission Hills area. There you get pretty close to it. I guess overall I’m sympathetic with the Hurt’s because of the, you hire a contractor. You think that they’re going to do all the stuff they’re supposed to do. However, I know they’ve got signatures and all of that but I’ve also had some contacts from some of your neighbors that aren’t overly impressed with it either. So I think it’s a difficult one. Appreciate all of the work that’s gone in so far and your ability, or your willingness to cooperate and do that things. Wouldn’t support, I wouldn’t support taking the patio out. You’re not going to walk in and out of the mud to get in and out of your house so that’s just going to go back someday so that’s not going to really do anything. But I don’t, this isn’t really one tonight that I’m ready to say yes to even with the pink stuff taken out. I just think this is a use that is, I mean the Hurt’s raise a lot of good points about the kids playing in the back yard and keeping them close to home and off of the streets and safe and all of those things are excellent points and there’s a lot of truth to that. But the rules are the rules as well and I’m not sure that I’m compelled to say that this is one I’m willing to go on. You know we have hard surface variance issues where people build garages and other things that are bigger City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 15 and different things so I think I would like to see a little more work done to see what else we can do to try to get down as low as possible. If there’s some other solutions or look at a picture of the sport court of what it would be to get at the 25% extra stuff taken out. I know the numbers are in the staff report but a picture’s worth a thousand words right so. I guess the overall I’d like maybe take a couple of more weeks, take a look at it. Continue to have the Hurt’s work with staff and see where they’re at and try to get a little bit lower on that if we can closer to that 25. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Appreciate your comments. Other comments or discussion. Councilman Peterson: I would agree with Councilman Lundquist. I mean we were successful earlier tonight with the Kakacek’s and letting staff work their magic. Although I think this is a bit more of a challenge, I certainly wouldn’t disagree with giving the ball back to staff and letting them be creative. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I totally also agree. I think that if they’re, the Hurt’s are going to make a sacrifice, to try to preserve what they have in their yard now, certainly I don’t know why we wouldn’t give them more time to try. To try to work something out somehow. And make everyone happy maybe. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well, for this one I disagree with my fellow councilors. I think they’ve come up with a solution here with removing the, we’ll call it the shaded area according to their drawings in the pink and when you look at that and the fact that their contractor put them in this position, granted you know, ultimately it’s the homeowner’s responsibility but I think that you know 2% is about what, 100 and some square feet? I can live with that so I would support the variance. Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine. I think point of clarification, I think it’s closer to 400 or 500, isn’t it? Councilman Lundquist: 6 something. 620. Mayor Furlong: The 2.76. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: It’s 568. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, well I appreciate the comments. I want to commend the Hurt’s for coming back with some proposal other than just saying we need it all. I think that’s admirable that they’re looking to work, and it sounds even tonight they’re willing to be flexible there. While I’m not willing to say, I’m certainly not willing to say no either. That there isn’t something that might work out so I too would certainly support council’s action if that was to City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 16 give it some more time. There’s not going to be much tennis playing in the next couple months here, especially if the forecast is right so I think we’ve got a little bit of time to work on this one before anything has to happen anyway so let’s take advantage of the time we have and let’s, you know work with staff. …and come back when we come up with a plan that’s workable, but better than the one we have, and that’s what I’m hearing from my council members as well. So. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Sir. Is there a deadline? Roger Knutson: Mayor, there is a deadline. What we’d need from them is to agree on an extension and I’ve picked the date, January 15th. Since you only have one meeting in December. I have written… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Would that be acceptable? We need to get that, if you could come up and agree to this? Then we’ll proceed with the motion to table, I think that’s where we’re going and then, at this point. Is there any further discussion on this or is there a motion to also consider? Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table item 4…the agreement. Mayor Furlong: So we’re tabling item 4. Bring back at a future meeting. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion to table’s been made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table the request for an after the fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback variances for a Sport Court at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Planning Case 05-32. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND A FOUR SEASON PORCH, 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE. Kate Aanenson: This is located in the Chan Estates neighborhood. Again this is an after the fact variance. It did go to the Planning Commission on November 1st and the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the variance. Again there was some additions put onto the house that were not permitted. Did not go through any building permit approval process so it was discovered when someone was actually looking at purchasing the house. They did some research that, noticed there were some additions put on, so that was one issue. And then the, trying to remove the hard surface coverage which was over. So what we’re trying to eliminate is everything, the applicant’s, everything that they could besides taking out the existing building portion. So there’s a couple of new differences between this one and the one we just saw. This is a lot that City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 17 was created in, the subdivision was created in 1966. At that time we had different zoning standards. Actually most of the lots in this area, Chan Estates are averaging around 12,000- 13,000 and some are actually smaller than that. Homes on either side are actually a little smaller than that so this was rezoned to RSF, which is a residential single family zone which has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Because this lot is only 12,800 square feet, it’s already impacted by the 25% impervious so it restricts the…of the lot, which wasn’t discovered obviously when, because it was not, did not come in for the permit. So the applicants in good faith have worked hard to try to resolve these issues based on the fact that it was already over and it would be difficult to remove the existing additions to the house to try to get that. So they worked to actually buy, acquire property from the adjacent property owners, so you can see the existing lot lines on here. And you can see the new lot line. This is the old lot line and new lot lines. So lots were acquired on either side of the property to add additional square footage. Which we actually haven’t seen too many people use that approach which we always suggest so we were actually pleasantly surprised that they were able to work through that issue. They have removed, I’ll get to the pictures here real quick. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, is that property, has it been purchased or they have it? Kate Aanenson: One of the conditions is they do have the legal description and in here it’s an administrative subdivision because they’re not creating a new lot. They’re just adding a lot to another so we have the titles in here and one of the conditions is that before we’d record it, that those be executed. Certainly we wouldn’t want to give a variance and then not have it executed. Councilman Lundquist: So they’ve written the check or they haven’t written the check? Kate Aanenson: The descriptions are all written up. They’re in the file. They haven’t been recorded yet, until, if you give approval with the condition before, we would record it that they would have to execute. It’d probably have the attorney’s office simultaneously do all that but they would actually have the administrative subdivision executed first. Signed by the County. Us and the County, then they would record. Councilman Lundquist: So they wrote the check or they didn’t write the check? Kate Aanenson: For us? Councilman Lundquist: No, to the. Kate Aanenson: For the property owners? Councilman Lundquist: The property owners. Kate Aanenson: I don’t know. We have the descriptions here. So I don’t know what, I didn’t ask what the financial transactions were. We have the descriptions here so. Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 18 Kate Aanenson: So there’s a driveway pad that was removed that’s right here to also eliminate some of the hard surface. In looking at the house and where you could eliminate again, similar with the last one is really, it’s a difficult thing when you try to move some hard surface and still make it a viable, a pleasant house too. You don’t want to degrade it and make it an inferior lot so looking at some of the patio because some additional sidewalk be removed, what does that do to the impact of the house? So there’s a patio between the two additions. You can see back here. You could eliminate that. I’m not sure as far as reducing that size, you can look at the back of that lot, what that does. I do have a picture showing what they added, but you saw that before… And then like I said, there’s an additional sidewalk that could be removed. That goes to an arbor on the side. That sidewalk that goes around. You can see they have removed and this was the paver, you saw the other picture that has been removed and already sodded over. So again, and they’ve really done, what they believe as much as they can short of, getting to this arbor, removing and it’s a small percentage. So again because of the Planning Commission taking the hard and fast line that the variance was self created, because they did not seek building permit approvals and the like, again and in working with the staff, they in our opinion have done as much as they can based on the fact that it’s an undersized lot. And I want to point out, at this point if it was a 15,000 square foot lot they would meet it. That standard. Another interesting point too, we do PUD’s on some of those smaller 11,000 square foot lots. They get the 30% so if it was even given a different zoning, they would maybe be closer to that, so we did put recommendations for approval and for denial as we did for the Planning Commission. Again I just want to clarify too that separate from this they’re still working through all their building permit issues, which is a conditional use. Want to make sure that gets carried through here too. They’re working on getting all those inspections completed and recorded factually and that they also have to put new easements in place because the old easements have to be vacated. So there is still some work, and then you can see that it would not be recorded, condition number 3, until the other administrative subdivisions are executed. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Couple that you mentioned, just for my understanding. You said if it was a PUD, our PUD’s go with a 30%. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Which this would fit in. Why isn’t it a PUD? Kate Aanenson: That was rezoned before my time here and I’m not sure what the rationale was to get it to be RSF. I’m not sure if we even had that PUD zone in place. Okay, Todd’s saying we probably didn’t have that PUD zone in place. Mayor Furlong: So that wasn’t. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it wasn’t even a factor so yeah. But if it would have been given something else, yeah. In looking at it in hindsight, you know they were already under sized lots. It’s pretty punitive to put that 25%. Mayor Furlong: Okay. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 19 Kate Aanenson: And just to be, there hasn’t been a lot of variances right in this immediate area either so I think that question. Mayor Furlong: There have not been? Kate Aanenson: There have not been in this immediate area. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And you said the building permit would, is it fair to say that had they gone through the building permit process when the porch and the garage was added. Kate Aanenson: No, they did not. Mayor Furlong: That these would have been caught? Kate Aanenson: Oh absolutely. Yes we would have… Mayor Furlong: Is that a standard process of use in terms of… Kate Aanenson: Correct. They’re routed through each department to make sure they’re not in an easement or engineering, any issues there and then planning would check impervious surface and setbacks. So we’ve eliminated the setback issues, which was one of them. So again, this was one, there’s two issues. The impervious and the setback so we’ve eliminated one issue which was the setbacks. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So Kate go over for me, what can they do to bring this? Kate Aanenson: Well you know, you’re talking about a minimal amount here by removing the sidewalk, and I guess I always try to temper that, livability of the house. If you get somebody else in there and then they come back and say this really isn’t, on taking the patio out. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So what else can they do then? Kate Aanenson: That’s about it. I don’t know if it’s reasonable to say take down the addition. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well that’s what I’m saying. Kate Aanenson: Right. Exactly, right. I guess that was our opinion too at the time. They’ve done this much as they could and at this point, sort of taking that out if you feel strongly about that. Councilman Labatt: So, quick question. So a lot of the stuff, if I understand your staff report, was the Koenig’s bought the house in May of ’91. Right? City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 20 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And a lot of this stuff was done by the previous owner to them? Kate Aanenson: No. They did the additions. The part that was no fault of their’s was the original zoning and the changing of the zoning to the 25%. It may have been caught but they wouldn’t have been able to get those additions when they came through in 2000 to get those additions but. Mayor Furlong: The fence line was pre-existing. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the fence line was up. Mayor Furlong: It was 1980. Kate Aanenson: Yes. The fence was outside the property line’s prior to there so, we did fix some other issues. The fence not on the property line so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I still go back to what other options then. Kate Aanenson: Right. That’s why we recommended approval as one of the options. To recommend approval with those conditions. That’s in place and then get those other things executed. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? If not, are Mr. and Mrs. Koenig here this evening? Mrs. Would you like to address the council on any matters? Please. Cindy Koenig: Thank you. I’m Cindy Koenig, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Cindy Koenig: We have tried to work with Josh a lot to try to fix the things that we caused. Trying to make amends. We’ve spent about a little less than $15,000 to try to fix these issues. We have wrote the checks to our neighbors and they have been cashed so you know we’ve completed that and when we all moved in those fence lines were that way so it was easy for us to all agree because it was property that nobody knew the other person had. We’re in the middle of moving to Arkansas and so trying to get to my family down there and I’m here trying to fix whatever I can fix to get this to work. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any questions? No? Okay, thank you. Bring it back to council for discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom, you’ve asked the question a couple times. What more can they do? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don’t know what is there to say. There’s definitely no options so I don’t know what there is to really even discuss. They’re kind of in a tough spot and I’m City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 21 certainly not going to vote that we deny this and have her tear her garage down. That doesn’t make any sense at all, so I don’t think there’s much to discuss as far as I’m concerned. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Others may want to discuss something. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well maybe they would. Mayor Furlong: I’ve got to give them a chance. Councilman Peterson: Well the dilemma is obviously if you, how do you compare a garage to a sport court? So is a sport court any less important to a homeowner than a garage expansion? So I think certainly we have to ask ourselves that question but I think I would have a tendency to agree with staff’s recommendation and move ahead with this. Mayor Furlong: Other comments, discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I think I would echo Councilman Peterson’s comments about interesting that these two came up on the same night I guess. Time will tell what happens with the sport court and this issue specifically. You know Kate I think you made some good points in the staff report about you know between 1960 and now and the changes that were made and this would fit that and all of the things and again as with the previous would commend the Koenig’s for working, buying extra property. Tearing out the driveway. Put the sod down. They’re obviously motivated to comply. Always struggle a little with it when they’re after the facts and some of those types of things, but I think in this case that I’m compelled to grant the variance and mostly because there’s been some effort there. A considerable amount of effort there and we really don’t have a lot of the other, of other options without some significant detriment to the property. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, questions? Councilman Labatt: No. I agree with you guys and you know, they’ve done, they’ve clearly done all they can do and you know, this one’s 2% more than the other one… I support it. I mean you know, I supported the other one too. Councilman Peterson: But Steve you supported taking 560 square feet off of the sport court. Councilman Labatt: No. I supported the tabling of that motion. I still, I think we did the right thing by not denying it but I supported the tabling but I still think we should have approved it but I support this one. Mayor Furlong: I think to raise questions. We’re dealing with each of these individually. You know in this case they have acquired property which is one of the questions that we always ask and here they did it. And you’re right, that usually doesn’t happen. What I was also impressed with is part of the property that they acquired put one of those property owners into a, over their hard surface coverage as well and that property owner took steps to remove hard surface coverage to get themselves back into compliance so they weren’t in the same situation. What City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 22 created this was following through and getting permits you know, building permits on these but I agree. I think they’ve worked it down as far as they reasonably can. I think there are differences between these two. This lot is 12,000 square feet. The other was a half acre. Garage, you can talk about how big a garage people need but a garage to me is a little bit more from a utilitarian standpoint, a requirement especially in Minnesota than a sport court. Does that mean that we shouldn’t let people have sport courts? Absolutely not. I mean that’s an amenity. We want to have people improve their property within the ordinances. So I think there might be some, there are some differences in the two. I think here, at this point, they’ve gotten it as good as they can. Short of you know, before we take a few feet off a sport court. Now we’re talking about taking a few feet off the garage. I don’t know how you do that. So I think in this case they’ve worked and finally got it the best they could. There are different circumstances here and I agree with staff, we need to go forward. I think we do need to make sure we have those conditions in there, specifically one with regard to the permits. Make sure that the additions are properly inspected so that those can be done. And we’re comfortable that they were constructed properly. With that being said I think we should move forward at this point with this one. Any other discussion? Councilman Labatt: We call it a shed then right when you take a few feet off your garage? You’ve got a shed. Mayor Furlong: You have a shed. Okay. Is there a, I think the motions are on page 7 of the staff report. Would someone like to make a motion? Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I’d move that we approve the variance 05-34 for a 4.06 hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and four season porch on a lot zoned single family residence, RSF subject to conditions 1 through 3 in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage and utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements adjacent to new property lines. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 23 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Good luck with the move. Cindy Koenig: Thank you. 1(k). SPALON MONTAGE: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO PLACE A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE FO THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA, 600 MARKET STREET, KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-33. Councilman Lundquist: Issue with this one Mr. Mayor, wasn’t more than a couple of weeks ago we had a sign variance request for the same building. Understand it was different. That they already had some signage on the second, or higher elevations let’s call it. Couple of questions I guess I was looking at either when we went through that one and in the staff report on this one as well, staff talked about being careful with where we’re putting signs and we do it once and then the next one and the next one and the next one and the next one and pretty soon you know, they’ll be flashing bright neon lights like the movie theater sign did in the beginning so I want to be cautious about what those signs are. Where they are. Do they really have to have it there? Is there another spot for it that would serve purposes, you know understand that the building was set up for offices at the beginning on that second story. Now things change and that’s fine, but as a, I wasn’t comfortable as a consent agenda item to have that out there so just like to have some staff input on that sign and any other like it in the city or in the area. Do we have any other second story sign kind of things and some discussion. Kate Aanenson: You bring up some good points Councilman Lundquist and that every project that comes in, a multi tenant one like this, we try to approve a site plan. In this instance they’re asked for us, actually an amendment to the sign package that we approved. They could have asked for a variance. They chose not to. The variance would have been to put it over the front door, which they didn’t want to put one over the front door. This is the space that Spalon is going into, so they wanted a sign over the top to get visibility over that use, but it’s, internally in staff we were having a lot of issues regarding that because if you put it over this, it almost leads you to believe you go into this door. That’s a single tenant. It’s not the multi tenant. But our rules say if it’s a multi tenant, you shouldn’t have a single sign over that, but you still could have got, they could have applied for a variance from that rule as opposed to the sign amendment allowing the sign on the top. Again we’ve been careful about how we place those. I just wanted to take a minute and kind of go through. Actually this was put together for the Planning Commission and it’s a series of photos that are put together so it’s not quite, you can see there’s some chop lines in there. When it originally came in they knew the bank was going to be a tenant so they fully disclosed it was their intent to put the bank sign up on the top, so that was approved right on the outset. In the instance of the Spalon, like you indicated, that was intended, we intended or they envisioned that they may be offices, so we didn’t really contemplate that City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 24 type of signage on the top. So those areas that are shaded were the ones that were approved. There’s the possibility that there’s two other peaks you know that could come in for a site plan amendment which goes back to your points. This would be the one that’s coming in now. This peak and there are other peaks. The one that came in for the bank on the canopy was again a variance because we don’t allow signs on canopies. We have a lot of other banks in town and we don’t allow them on gas stations either. Just that’s the ordinance so they came in under a variance request on that. So a little different than the site plan or the sign amendment that they’re going for here tonight. But you’re right, they could always come back and ask for some on the other peaks. But we internally trying to discuss other ways to give us some other options but there was another option and that was to go over the center door and that would have requested a variance on that door but I think they felt, because the Spalon was on the second floor that they wanted the visibility. But there is some maybe some miscuing too that people have to figure out that that’s not the door you go into to get into the Spalon. Councilman Peterson: I think there’s going to be a lot of miscuing. Kate Aanenson: I think so too. We had a lot of internal discussions regarding that. Whether they chose to go for the site plan amendment. That was their request. Obviously the staff, you have to process the application but there would be another approach and that would be to get the variance and their recommendation is they wouldn’t allow it. But I guess that’s kind of partially your decision too if you chose not on that site. Councilman Lundquist: It’d be great if that store had the same type of clientele as the Spalon. While you’re here. Kate Aanenson: And the Planning Commission did vote to approve it, the amendment 5 to 0 when they held their hearing. Mayor Furlong: Question for you. The picture that you held up there with the red, that one there. The peak to the right of that picture. Yeah. Is there a sign there? Kate Aanenson: No. Those are showing potential other peaks that someone could ask for. Mayor Furlong: Okay, they could ask for but right now on the site plan those are not included? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. They’d have to come back for another amendment. So you have that control. Mayor Furlong: One of the things that I saw in their application, which if I can find it here. Councilman Labatt: Page 356. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At the end it says the owner is willing to provide any assurance necessary that there would be no more, no additional requests for second floor signage. Councilman Lundquist, perhaps this speaks to your issue and if that’s not in the site plan right now, is that something. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 25 Kate Aanenson: I don’t know how you can get that. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, they’ll provide assurance until the next time they have a tenant that wants to come in and do it. Mayor Furlong: Well unless it’s a condition of approval. Kate Aanenson: I would ask, I don’t think you can. Roger Knutson: This is not a conditional use permit we’re dealing with. This is site plan review to determine whether what they’re asking for, is it consistent with our ordinance requirements. So the question for us is, do they meet the sign ordinance requirements. If they do, they, and the ordinance would say, allow it. And if it doesn’t, then the answer is no. But it’s really difficult, I mean you can incorporate if you will, into his statement that he’s assured us that he won’t do it, and that would just be kind of a like a moral promise. Mayor Furlong: Which is what most promises are. Councilman Peterson: Some of them have to enforce a law. Mayor Furlong: That’s true. That’s true. Kate Aanenson: Or if it got sold and somebody else came in and requested. But again, because it’s a site plan amendment, we do allow signs on a second story. It’s just that we had approved a specific sign package for this use and say this is what we believe makes sense and is architecturally, you know the only way we would allow to go up higher is the bank and that was… Mayor Furlong: And what changed here was the tenant mix. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Mayor Furlong: That they were anticipating at the time. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Something. Mayor Furlong: The bank was anticipated, which was, we dealt with earlier. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that was originally approved but then it was going and they wanted the visibility for that type of use. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, how about other, like you said like the Chanhassen Lawn and Sports thing over there across the street, right. Is that sign still up high? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 26 Councilman Lundquist: What other locations do we have in kind of the central downtown that have second story? Kate Aanenson: Actually if you look at the Klein Bank. I think there’s some higher on that, that have some of the other firms that are in there. I’m not sure on Byerly’s. Councilman Labatt: Isn’t there one on the west side of Byerly’s? Kate Aanenson: On the west side of Byerly’s, yeah. There’s some office space up there that has some too. Councilman Labatt: On the west wall. West elevation there’s some. Councilman Lundquist: Is this a lighted sign? I can’t remember. Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. It’s illuminated. Yes. Mayor Furlong: But it’s back lit. It’s not neon. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. We do check lumens now. Yeah, so again it’s one of those things where you want to restrict it so you’ve got some control when you’re looking at it but in this circumstance we were pretty restrictive and hadn’t anticipated the change in mix. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Or discussion. On this. If there’s none, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Any other discussion? Councilman Peterson: I feel your pain. I agree with it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Yes. Cindy McDonald: I know you typically don’t… Mayor Furlong: Certainly, please come forward. Cindy McDonald: Cindy McDonald, Kraus-Anderson Realty representing the owner and the manager. For the Spalon sign, again we really don’t want any additional signs up on the second level. We’re pretty particular on the signage that we approve for our tenants. But we did not have any vision that Spalon would come to our property when they did and said that they would lease 8,000 square feet. It was a great opportunity for the property, and signage for them is very important. They’re wrapping up their construction and they’re going to be opening in a few days. The sign that is in your packet, it’s white. It’s very tastefully done. It looks great on the building and on those other peaks, you know we really have no vision of putting any additional sign. The reason that it would not look right over those three doors is that is the office entry. If City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 27 it is positioned in the place that we proposed, you’ll see that they’re up on the second level. Once they go in that main office entry atrium, there’s a directory signage right there that says Suite 270. You go up the stairs and they’ll see that Spalon is up there, so we feel that that doesn’t confuse the customer on how to get there and where they’re located. If we would put Spalon sign on that first area, the sign band, right now Bebi’s sign is in production and is going to go there so we actually have a tenant right at that first area where they’re proposing to put a sign. That would be confusing because it would look like there’s two tenants there and there’s actually one tenant on the first level and then Spalon up on the second level. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Since you had volunteered to go up there, say that again. Kate, do you have that picture of the building? Kate Aanenson: We understood that there’s a tenant here… Cindy McDonald: Right. This is Bebi. Councilman Lundquist: Right. Kate Aanenson: Right, but our recommendation was… Cindy McDonald: Right, and that’s the office entry. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but that’s where you’ve got to go in to get up there, right? Cindy McDonald: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: So you’ve got to go in that door to see the sign that says Suite 270. You go up the stairs and it’s over there. If you put it above the other one, they’re going to walk right through that door and go, how do I get to Spalon Montage? I mean I’m just, I’m not following where, if you put it over the center door that you have to go in to get to the place, why that’s going to be confusing to people when they put it above the space if they go through that door directly below where the sign is. That’s not the place you go. Cindy McDonald: Yeah, we feel that they’re coming down Market Boulevard, that they will see that sign. They’ll get there and they’ll be able to figure out how to go upstairs. Right now we have our building address sign in that area. Right above the three doors. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Won’t there be something on the door as they walk in that says Spalon Montage? Cindy McDonald: Yes, there will be. Inside. Councilman Lundquist: The Bebi thing that says Spalon Montage that way. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 28 Councilman Peterson: But the same number of people are going to go to that main entrance looking for another office complex in there will be dissuaded from going into that entrance to Spalon Montage so… Mayor Furlong: That’s the thing for all the tenants that use that common entrance. Cindy McDonald: Yeah, it looks like you’re walking right into Spalon Montage, and when you walk into that office entry, you’re able to figure out what’s going on. We have CJ’s. It’s a very open environment and the directory we do feel will assist. And once you walk up the stairs and they have a big presence. They have a great looking store. Councilman Lundquist: Thank you. Cindy McDonald: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist: Let the floodgates open. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the request from Spalon Montage for a site plan amendment to place a wall sign outside of the approved sign band area, 600 Market Street, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company, Planning Case 05-33. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I know you’ve been waiting months and months and months for an update on the 41 river crossing. Mayor Furlong: It’s almost 3 years. Councilman Lundquist: Be careful what you ask for. Should have one of these brochures. Attended a meeting last week, I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday night with MnDot and all of the other affected municipality representatives of that elected representatives of those municipalities so, really what’s going on is MnDot has 6 options for a new bridge to cross the river. And the intention is to connect new 212 with 169 in Shakopee. So in this brochure there’s a map with all the alignments and all of that good stuff. This is a project that MnDot is in an City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 29 environmental impact phase and a lot of work going on. We’ve got some really of those 6 there isn’t a good one. There isn’t an easy one. Environmental issues all over the map. Existing neighborhoods. Nature preserves. You’ve got DNR. You’ve got the fen. You have Social of Justice groups and you’ve got all this is going to be lots and lots of fun. So in response to that, MnDot has done something that they don’t usually do, is put together this flyer to kind of lay out all of the things, and this was actually mailed to I think over 10,000 households in kind of all along these affected routes and things like that so, there’s a big open house coming up in December sometime that this really refers to. So had some discussions with Mr. Gerhardt as well. I think my recommendation would be that sometime after the first of the year that we invite Lisa Freese and Lynn Clarkowski from MnDot to come in and talk to us. Obviously we’ve got some pretty, our alignments that we’re concerned with, Chanhassen affected by is E-1, E-1A and E-2. So you’ve got you know, you’ve got Bluff Creek and Hesse Farms and the fen and existing neighborhoods and some other access and connection issues on 212 so there’s a lot of stuff going on but to try to kind of get specific information to Chanhassen to get the MnDot reps in and really the big thing we’re pushing for is, in the winter of 2006, which is less than, or right about a year from now, MnDot hopes to identify their preferred corridor and preferred alternatives. This project’s not funded on the 20 year plan but once that corridor gets picked, you know then it’s here we go. So we want to make sure that we get all the information and get our opinions out before that comes about too, so again my recommendation would be we try to get them in shortly after the new year and have a discussion or work session regarding this. And I will attend the open house. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you and we can certainly do that. Take that on a work session after the first of the year. Todd Gerhardt: That’s one of our first 2006 goals for the year and staff will be meeting with MnDot I believe next Tuesday. Councilman Lundquist: 22nd. Todd Gerhardt: Yep, so be interesting how the open house goes and giving you the input on that. Councilman Lundquist: The interesting thing, editorial comment is that of all the municipalities, Chaska, Chanhassen, Carver, Hollywood Township, Shakopee, the two counties, the only one that wants this is Shakopee. Everybody else is you know, go that way or this way. Shakopee is yeah, we’ll take any one so. So it will be interesting. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other council presentations? Just to share a note. I had an opportunity last Friday was Veterans Day and I was invited to attend two Veteran’s Day celebrations at local schools. One at Chaska Middle School West and the other at Chapel Hill Academy here in Chanhassen and both of them were just great events. It was interesting to see how the children really appreciate the veterans. At the Middle School they had probably about 30 or 40 veterans and to see the entire middle school population stand up on their own and give them a standing ovation was just moving. To see at Chapel Hill, a K through 8 school but there again even the young children which were listening intently to stories of past wars and conflicts and to see the veterans there, their grand parents and aunts and uncles and parents there as City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 30 veterans and to appreciate them was really great so it was fun to be a part of those, both of those events and it’s good to see that they’re taking place here in our city and in our schools. Councilman Lundquist: The Chapel Hill one also had the Distinguished Veteran Congressman Kline. Mayor Furlong: They did, thank you. I had that down and forgot to mention it. Yes, Representative Kline was there and he gave the keynote address and did a very good job so, it was, and he was impressed that we’re doing that. He specifically said it was, that not enough schools are doing it and so I was pleased to be able to tell him that our Chaska Middle School West had just done it earlier in the morning and he was pleased to hear that as well. Councilman Lundquist: I had breakfast with him that morning that he was late to and then cut us off so he could make sure he got to the Chapel Hill… Mayor Furlong: Good. Very good. Todd Gerhardt: Got his priorities right. Councilman Lundquist: Go see the kids. Mayor Furlong: I thought it was to be with the Mayor. Councilman Lundquist: Oh yeah, that. Mayor Furlong: Alright, Mr. Gerhardt. Administrative presentations. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Got one item. Want to get the word out that you may have read in the papers, so the word is out, also I think we were on either Channel 5 or Channel 9 on break in’s at Summerwood Apartments and Lake Susan Apartments. Our Crime Prevention Officer Beth Hoiseth had met with the property managers in both cases and gave them information on crime prevention measures that they could implement, and also we have additional patrol in that area so anybody out there listening, watch out. We have patrolmen in the area and so, we take these things seriously and have given extra patrol. Other than that, we will continue our work session and review administrative budgets and finance and after the regular council meeting. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? If there are none, is there any discussion on the correspondence packet? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005 31 Prepared by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: November 28, 2005 SUBJ: Change to monthly meeting date and time for Environmental Commission REQUESTED ACTION (Simple majority vote of the City Council) Authorize the monthly meeting date and time for the Environmental Commission. The Commission will meet the 2nd Tuesday of the month at 6:30 pm. DISCUSSION The Environmental Commission recently voted and approved a change to their monthly meeting dates. Their regular date and time was the 2nd Wednesday of the month starting at 7 pm. They would like to move their meetings to the 2nd Tuesday of the month starting at 6:30 pm. The change is to accommodate the different schedules of all the commissioners. The Environmental Commission by-laws have been modified to reflect the change. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the change to the monthly meeting date and time for the Environmental Commission to the 2nd Tuesday of the month, starting at 6:30 pm. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY-LAWS The following by-laws are adopted by the Chanhassen Environmental Commission to facilitate the performances of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a Commission established by the City Council pursuant to the provision of Subdivision 1, Section 462.354, Minnesota State Statutes annotated. Section 1 - Duties and Responsibilities 1.1 The Environmental Commission has the purpose and responsibility to provide the residents of Chanhassen with opportunities to improve the quality of their environment, address issues that affect the city’s natural resources, provide environmental education to the public, bring a comprehensive perspective to environmental issues, and advocate the benefits and necessity of Chanhassen’s natural resources. 1.2 The Environmental Commission shall serve as an advisory body to the City Council and Planning Commission in addressing the needs of the environment as directed by the City Council. All final decisions are to be made by the City Council. 1.3 The Environmental Commission will consider and make recommendations at the direction of the City Council regarding environmental issues. 1.4 The Environmental Commission will make recommendations at the direction of the City Council regarding funding for environmental projects. 1.5 The Environmental Commission may propose studies to the City Council and make recommendations according to the results. 1.6 The Environmental Commission will coordinate services with other governmental and private agencies for related issues 1.7 Establishment of Sub-Committees. The Environmental Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish special sub-committees comprised solely of their own members. Section 2 - Meetings 2.1 Time and Place. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the second Wednesday Tuesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson, in which case, at least 24 hours notice will be given to all 2 members. Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 9:00 p.m. which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairperson. All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular meeting. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there shall be no meeting. In such an event, the monthly meeting shall be rescheduled by consensus. 2.2 Special Meetings. Special meetings shall be held upon call by consensus of the Commission and with at least 48 hours of notice to all members. 2.3 Attendance. The Environmental Commission members shall attend not less than 75% of all regular and special meetings held during a given calendar year and shall not be absent from three consecutive meetings. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement will result in removal from the commission. Section 3 - Commission Composition - Terms and Vacancies 3.1 Composition. The Environmental Commission shall consist of seven voting members. Seven members shall be appointed by the City Council and may be removed by the Council. The City Council may appoint one of their members to serve as a liaison to the Commission. 3.2 Terms and Vacancies. The City Council shall appoint seven members to the commission for terms of three years. Vacancies during the term shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of the term. All members shall serve without compensation. 3.3 Member Requirements. All members of the Environmental Commission shall be in compliance with all local, state, and federal environmental regulations at their homes and owned businesses. Members will be allowed six months to correct any violations. Violations existing after that time will be reasonable cause for removal from the Commission by action of the City Council. 3.4 Quorum. Four Environmental Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. Section 4 - Organization 4.1 Election of Officers. The first meeting in April of each year, the Environmental Commission shall hold an organizational meeting. At this meeting, the Commission shall elect from its membership a chairperson and vice-chairperson. This shall be done by voice vote. Vice- Chairperson shall be elected from the remaining members by the same proceeding. If the Chairperson retires from the Environmental Commission before the next regular organizational meeting, the Vice-Chairperson shall be Chairperson. If both Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson retire, new officers shall be elected at the next regular meeting. If both 3 Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson are absent from a meeting, the Commission shall elect a temporary Chairperson by voice vote. 4.2 Duties of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. The Chairperson, or in his/her absence, the Vice Chairperson, shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving as rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members, witnesses and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairperson shall not move for action but may second motions. Section 5 - Procedure 5.1 Procedure. When appropriate, parliamentary procedure governed by Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall be followed. Section 6 - Informational Meetings 6.1 Purpose of Informational Meetings. The purpose of an informational meeting is to collect information and facts in order for the Commission to develop a rational environmental issue recommendation for the City Council. 6.2 Meeting Procedure. At informational meetings, the following procedures shall be followed in each case: a. The Chairperson shall state the purpose of the meeting. b. Interested persons may address the Commission, giving information regarding the particular proposal. Section 7 - Miscellaneous 7.1 Environmental Commission Discussion. Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda may not be considered and discussed by the Commission until the end of the agenda. 7.2 Suspension of Rules. The Commission may suspend any of these rules by unanimous vote of the members present. 7.3 Amendments. Amendments of these by-laws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Environmental Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting. 7.4 Review. At the first meeting in April of each year, these by-laws shall be read and adopted by the Environmental Commission. Adopted this 8th day of November, 2005. 4 _______________________, Chairperson _______________________, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: November 28, 2005 SUBJ: Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Approval, Robert Rick. Planning Case #05-25 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The developer is requesting final plat approval to subdivide a 1.4 Acre Lot into Three (3) Single-Family Lots with a Variance, Minnewashta Creek Hill ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. BACKGROUND On August 22, 2005, the City Council adopted the following motion: The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hill for 3 lots and a variance to run a private street as shown on the plans received July 20, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. b. Any preserved trees removed will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. Finding: This condition still applies. 2. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. In lieu of any land dedication, full park fees shall be collected at the time of platting. With the one existing home, the total park fee for Minnewashta Creek Hill will be $8,000. b. Additional trail construction is not required as a part of this project; however during demolition and construction, the existing pedestrian trail shall be protected and remain open. No construction equipment shall be parked on or use the trail as a staging area during construction. In addition, all match points encountered on the trail for demolition and/or construction shall be professionally constructed. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 2 Finding: This condition still applies. 3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. Finding: This condition still applies. 4. The driveway grade must be adjusted so that runoff from the driveway will sheet drain to the east. The grades east of the proposed private drive must be adjusted to provide a drainage swale along the east side of the driveway to the proposed catch basin. Finding: This condition has been met. 5. 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. Finding: This condition still applies. 6. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Finding: This condition has been modified to read “Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the grading limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion.” 7. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. Finding: This condition has been met. 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. Finding: This condition still applies. 9. The developer shall also extend storm sewer from the existing storm sewer manhole within Minnewashta Parkway at the south end of the property. The upstream storm sewer structure shall have a catch basin cover and a three-foot sump. Finding: This condition has been met. 10. The lateral sanitary sewer and watermain connections to the existing trunk utilities must be north of the proposed private drive. The developer shall extend 8-inch lateral sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (top elevation 951.23’). Finding: This condition has been met. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 3 11. A manhole must be installed wherever a bend is proposed in the sanitary sewer. Individual sanitary sewer services must be 6-inch diameter. Finding: This condition has been met. 12. Six-inch lateral watermain shall be wet tapped from the existing trunk utility. Finding: This condition has been met. 13. A gate valve must be installed immediately west of the wet tap. Finding: This condition has been met. 14. A hydrant is required at the end of the proposed watermain for flushing purposes. Finding: This condition has been met. 15. Additional drainage and utility easements may be required based on the revised utility plan. Easements shall be minimum 20-feet wide centered over each utility. Finding: This condition still applies. 16. According to the City’s Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup, therefore sanitary sewer and water hookup charges must be paid for two lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 for water-main. Finding: This condition still applies. 17. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Finding: This condition still applies. 18. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. Finding: This condition has been met. 19. 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. Finding: This condition still applies. 20. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. Finding: This condition still applies. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 4 21. The driveway easement must clearly stipulate that the owners of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek Hill shall own and maintain the private drive and the private storm sewer north of the private driveway. The private street must be built to a 7-ton design, 20-foot width. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. Finding: This condition still applies. 22. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. The grading plan shall be revised to show silt fence down slope of all disturbed areas. Chanhassen’s standard detail for silt fence (Plate 5300) shall be included in the plans. Finding: This condition has been met. b. 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. Finding: This condition has been met. c. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Finding: This condition has been met. d. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,355. Finding: This condition still applies. e. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. Finding: This condition still applies. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 5 23. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Finding: This condition still applies. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. Finding: This condition still applies. c. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot and must have a separate connection to the public sewer or to a manhole which is connected to the public sewer. Finding: This condition still applies. d. Curb box valves cannot be located in driveways. Finding: This condition still applies. e. Permits are required for retaining walls. Walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer. Finding: This condition still applies. f. The developer must submit a proposed name for the private drive. Finding: This condition still applies. 24. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed private street will need a street name. Submit name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. 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.” Finding: This condition still applies. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 6 25. The applicant will work with staff to address the issues of safety of the private street accessing onto Minnewashta Parkway, drainage towards the lake, and providing appropriate parking and turn around areas. Finding: This condition has been met. 26. The applicant will extend the private street in order to provide an adequate turn around on Lot 3. Finding: This condition has been met. FINAL PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.4 acre site into 3 single-family lots. The gross and net density of the site is 2.1 units per acre. All three lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 20,457 square feet. All three proposed lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. These lots will be served by a private street. This development is in the shoreland management district which requires a 20-foot setback from the private street. The private street roadway shall not be included with the calculations of the hard surface coverage of the individual lots. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL The 1.41-acre site currently has one single-family home amid numerous significant trees. The existing house and driveway will be removed. Due to the environmental sensitivity of the site, the developer proposes to construct a 20-foot wide private street within a 30-foot wide driveway, drainage and utility easement. This proposal requires mass grading of approximately half of the site to construct the private street, resulting in saving 80% of the trees. The developer proposes custom-graded lots for all three lots, therefore detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. As-built surveys for each lot must also be submitted before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. The site currently drains from the southwest to the north and to the east. The proposed drainage pattern is consistent with the existing drainage pattern and will not increase the surface area draining to the existing single-family property to the north. The developer has submitted drainage calculations for the existing and proposed conditions, which indicate that the proposed development will not significantly increase the amount or rate of runoff from the site. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 7 The developer will extend private storm sewer from the existing 27” trunk storm sewer within Minnewashta Parkway to the site. This storm sewer will capture runoff from the proposed private driveway and from the front yard of Lot 2. The plan does not identify any retaining walls. 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. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. 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. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $1,093/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 1.41 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $1,541. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,705 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $3,814 for the proposed development. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,355. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. UTILITIES The developer proposes to extend storm sewer from the existing storm sewer manhole within Minnewashta Parkway at the south end of the property. The upstream storm sewer structure will have a three-foot sump. The developer proposes to extend 6” lateral sanitary sewer from the existing stub within Minnewashta Parkway to the proposed manhole within the private driveway. The as-built utility Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 8 information for this area does not show a sanitary sewer stub at this location. The utility plan identifies a 4” wet tap from the existing 12” trunk watermain within Minnewashta Parkway and installing 4” lateral watermain to the south side of the private drive. The lateral sanitary sewer and watermain connections to the existing trunk utilities must be north of the proposed private drive. The developer shall extend 8” lateral sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (top elevation 951.23’). The alignment of the lateral sanitary sewer within the site shall be similar to the original proposal, however a manhole must be installed wherever a bend is proposed in the sanitary sewer. Individual sanitary sewer services must be 6” diameter. Six inch lateral watermain will be wet tapped from the existing trunk utility. A gate valve must be installed immediately west of the wet tap. A hydrant is proposed at the end of the proposed watermain for flushing purposes. Both the lateral watermain and sanitary sewer will be publicly owned and maintained. Additional drainage and utility easements may be required based on the revised utility plan. Easements shall be minimum 20 feet wide centered over each utility. The developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and watermain within the site, therefore the sanitary sewer and water lateral charges will be waived. According to the City’s Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup, therefore sanitary sewer and water hookup charges must be paid for two lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home must be removed or properly abandoned. 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. 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. STREETS The developer proposes to construct a 20-foot wide private drive to serve the three proposed lots. The private drive will intersect Minnewashta Parkway at approximately the same location of the southern access point of the existing horseshoe driveway. The maximum grade of the private drive shall not exceed 10%, as shown on the plans. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 9 The driveway easement must clearly stipulate that the owners of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek Hill shall own and maintain the private drive and the private storm sewer north of the private driveway. PARK DEDICATION The three homes proposed for Minnewashta Creek Hill will have convenient access to Roundhouse Park located less than one-half mile to the south of the property. The park is eight acres in size and features a public swimming beach, fishing pier, ice rink, warming house and shelter building, playground, basketball court, open field, picnic area, benches and trail. TRAILS A popular section of the City’s comprehensive trail system is located at the front on each of the proposed lots. This trail section travels along Minnewashta Parkway from Highway 5 to Highway 7, extending to the east at Highway 7. This trail will serve as a convenient pedestrian access from the new homes to Roundhouse Park. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Approximate tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Minnewashta Creek Hill development as shown using a private drive are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) 61,371 SF Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) 30,315 SF Baseline canopy coverage 50% Minimum canopy coverage allowed 35% or 21,480 SF Proposed tree preservation 35% or 21,795 SF The developer meets the minimum canopy coverage allowed and no reforestation plantings are required. No bufferyard plantings are required along the adjoining properties since they are of equal zoning. Plantings are required along Minnewashta Parkway, but the existing trees to be preserved provide a buffer complimentary with the neighboring properties and are acceptable as bufferyard plantings. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 10 Location Required Proposed Buffer yard B – Minnewashta Pkwy 2 overstory trees 4 understory trees 4 shrubs 5 existing overstory trees COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE – PUD-R DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance Min 11,000 90' 100' 50' front/30’ rear Avg. 15,000 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 23,474 90' 319' 50'/30' 10' Lot 2 20,778 92.4' 264' 50'/30' 10' Lot 3 17,119 94' 222' 50'/30' 10' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: “The City Council grants final plat approval of Planning Case #05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hill for 3 lots and a variance to run a private street as shown on the plans received July 20, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. b. Any preserved trees removed will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. In lieu of any land dedication, full park fees shall be collected at the time of platting. With the one existing home, the total park fee for Minnewashta Creek Hill will be $8,000. b. Additional trail construction is not required as a part of this project; however during demolition and construction, the existing pedestrian trail shall be protected and remain open. No construction equipment shall be parked on or use the trail as a staging area during construction. In addition, all match points encountered on the trail for demolition and/or construction shall be professionally constructed. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 11 3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 4. 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. 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the grading limits. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 6. 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. 7. Additional drainage and utility easements may be required based on the revised utility plan. Easements shall be minimum 20-feet wide centered over each utility. 8. According to the City’s Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup, therefore sanitary sewer and water hookup charges must be paid for two lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 for water-main. 9. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 10. 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. 11. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 12. The driveway easement must clearly stipulate that the owners of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek Hill shall own and maintain the private drive and the private storm sewer north of the private driveway. The private street must be built to a 7-ton design, 20-foot width. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 13. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,355. b. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. Minnewashta Creek Hill Final Plat Planning Case No. 05-25 November 28, 2005 Page 12 14. 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. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot and must have a separate connection to the public sewer or to a manhole which is connected to the public sewer. d. Curb box valves cannot be located in driveways. e. Permits are required for retaining walls. Walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer. f. The developer must submit a proposed name for the private drive. 15. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed private street will need a street name. Submit name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. 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.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Final Plat. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-25 minnewashta creek hill\final plat.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer DATE: November 28, 2005 SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Minnewashta Creek Hills Project No. 05-14 (Simple Majority Vote Required) The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval from the final platting and construction plans and specifications review process. The required financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract is $45,485.00. The developer shall submit $15,015.00 in cash, which includes the $1,095.00 administration fee, $60 fee for recording, $55 GIS fee, $450 attorney fee, $5,355.00 SWMP fee and $8,000.00 Park fee. No City funds are needed as part of this private development project. Construction plans for the proposed project have been submitted. Staff will complete a detailed review and will work with the developer to ensure that the plans comply with City’s standards. Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated November 28, 2005. 2. Construction plans and specifications are available for review in the Engineering Department. 3. Breakdown of Administration Fees. c: Bob Rick, Rick Realty g:\eng\projects\minnewashta creek hill\approve dc.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director DATE: November 18, 2005 SUBJ: Issuance of Private Activity Bonds BACKGROUND The City has received a request from Chapel Hill Academy to allow them to use the city’s bonding authority to issue approximately $1.5 million in conduit debt. The City has approximately $1.8 million left under its bank qualification status for 2005, and allowing the academy to issue this debt under the City’s EDA bonding authority has no effect on the City’s finances or bonding ability for the rest of the year in 2005. The debt is the sole responsibility of the Obligor (Chapel Hill Academy) and the City will be the issuer but will have no legal obligation to the debt. The funds will be used to refinance a previous debt at a lower interest rate. The City has allowed other organizations to use the City’s bonding authority to issue debt, including the Ridgeview Medical Center in 2002. The City will receive a one-half of one percent fee (about $7,000), to recover any costs associated with this issuance. RECOMMENDATION It is staff’s recommendation that City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the issuance of a revenue note by the Economic Development Authority for Chapel Hill Academy not to exceed $1.5 million. The EDA will hold a public hearing on December 12th and then will consider approving the issuance of the note following the hearing. Approval of the resolution requires a simple majority vote of those City Council members present. RESOLUTION NO. ___ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A REVENUE NOTE BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows: 1. Recitals. The Council makes the following recitals of fact: A. The Council created the Economic Development Authority of the City of Chanhassen (the “EDA”) pursuant to Resolution 97-29 (the “Enabling Resolution”). B. Section 3.01(a) of the Enabling Resolution provides that the sale of all bonds or obligations issued by the EDA shall be first approved by the City Council. C. The EDA has advised the City that: (i) Chapel Hill Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Borrower”) desires to undertake the following project: refinancing the outstanding principal amount of the Chapel Hill Academy, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, First Mortgage Bonds, 1999 Series, dated June 1, 1999, issued by Chapel Hill Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, in the original principal amount of $1,620,000 for the purpose of acquiring a kindergarten through eighth grade school facility, including a cafeteria and gymnasium, located on approximately 4.8 acres of land at 306 West 78th Street in Chanhassen, Minnesota, and pay costs associated with the financing (the “Project”); and (ii) the Borrower has represented to the EDA that the economic feasibility of the Project will be greatly enhanced through the issuance of revenue obligations by the EDA under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended in a principal amount not exceeding $1,500,000 and in one or more series (the “Obligations”) to finance the cost of the Project. D. The EDA has requested the Council to approve the issuance of the Obligations as required by the Enabling Resolution. 2. Approval. Issuance of the Obligations by the EDA is approved as required by the Enabling Resolution 2 Adopted: November 28, 2005 Mayor Attest: City Manager M:\DOCS\16164\000000\ROL\HV8662.DOC MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Bill Bement, Engineering Technician IV DATE: November 28, 2005 SUBJ: Accept Public Streets and Storm Sewer in Knob Hill 2nd Addition - Project No. 02-06 Staff has received a letter from Mr. Steve Harvey, Project Engineer with R.L.K. Kuusisto, requesting the City consider acceptance of the streets and storm sewer improvements in the above-referenced project. According to Mr. Harvey, the public improvements have been completed in conformance with the approved plans and specifications. City staff performed an inspection of the project and found the streets and storm sewer in satisfactory condition. It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept the public streets and storm sewer improvements at Knob Hill 2nd Addition, Project No. 02-06, for perpetual maintenance and ownership conditioned upon receipt of an acceptable maintenance bond. jms Attachments: 1. Letter from Steven Harvey dated November 3, 2005. 2. Location Map. c: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer John Knoblauch, Developer Patrick Minger, Minger Construction g:\eng\projects\knob hill 2nd\accept streets-storm.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Gregg Geske- Fire Chief Sherri Walsh – 1st Assistant Chief Randy Wahl - 2nd Assistant Chief Mark Littfin- Fire Marshal Ed Coppersmith – Training Officer DATE: November 18, 2005 SUBJ: Monthly City Council update Fire Department Overview: Staffing is at 39 active firefighters and 6 on probation as of October 17, 2005, allocation is 45 PTE’s. As of November 6, we were at 504 calls for the year, up 20 from 484 at the same time in 2004. The Fire Board and the officers have been attending some training involving a concept called “On Deck”. The concept adopted by the Phoenix Fire Department and the New York City Fire Department addresses several safety issues and provides a better reaction to a mayday at an incident. Many of the main metro departments have adopted “On Deck”. By the Chanhassen Fire Department adopting “On Deck”, we will have better interoperability with our mutual aid partners. With the onset of cold weather our ice rescue equipment has been made ready. Fire Training: The annual physical agility test was conducted for members in November. Several hours of rescue training were also held in November. Several members of the fire department worked with Shakopee Fire Department during a mock warehouse fire under mutual aid response protocols. The rookie class is continuing with Firefighter I class and is due to complete it in mid December. Fire Marshal: No large fires to report. The two working fires that we responded to were a car fire on October 3rd on W. 78th Street and a large roll-off dumpster fire behind Cub Foods on Wednesday, November 9th. There was also a small deck fire started by smoking on Chanhassen Hills Drive South on November 9th. Other calls responded to were false fire alarms, car accidents and a few medical emergencies. Todd Gerhardt November 18, 2005 Page 2 Fire Inspections: We will be finishing up this month with re-inspections of previous inspections. New construction inspections are close to finish at Stone Creek Town Offices, Lake Winds Grocery Store, Cub Foods remodel, Walgreen’s Drug Store and Spalon Montage. New construction is slowing down a little for the season, so Ed and I will be doing more existing inspections in December, January and February. Fire Prevention: Fire Prevention activities were completed at the end of October. I believe the Fire Chief reported the number of children visited during firefighter visits to daycares, station tours and open houses. We had a fire truck out on Halloween driving through neighborhoods and handing out candy to kids. This was the second year we’ve done this and both the kids and parents love it. They are a little taken aback at why there is a fire truck stopping in their neighborhood, but once they find out why we are there, they think it’s great. We will continue with this program in the future.