Loading...
CC Packet 2006 12 11AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2006 CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. A. City Manager’s Performance Evaluation. 6:30 P.M. – CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSIO B. Discussion of 2007 Budget. (Refer to the Report for Item 4). 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS C. Presentation of Environmental Excellence Awards. D. Presentation of Maple Leaf Award to Councilman Brian Lundquist. 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 27, 2006 - City Council Summary Minutes dated November 27, 2006 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated November 27, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Summary minutes dated November 21, 2006 - Planning Commission Verbatim minutes dated November 21, 2006 b. Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements Project No. 06-05: Cancel Assessment Hearing Previously Scheduled for December 11, 2006 and Call a New Assessment Hearing. c. Approve Street Name Change of Lake Riley Road to Lakeview Road East, Project Nos. 95-20 & 06-13 d. Approval of City Code Amendments: 1) Chapter 4 Regarding Fees 2) Approval of City Code Amendments: Chapter 18, Subdivisions Regarding Final Plats e. Custom Fab Solutions, LLC, 7600 Quattro Drive: Site Plan Approval for Expansion to Existing Building. f. Resolution Approving Adjustment to Engineering Fees. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 2. CHANHASSEN HIGH SCHOOL; Located North of Lyman Boulevard, South of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad, and West of Bluff Creek; Applicant: Anderson- Johnson Associates, Inc./Independent School District 112: Request for an Interim Use Permit to Grade the Site in Preparation for Development, Review Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and Consider Approval of a Resolution Declaring No Need for an Environmental Impact Statement. 3. AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX; Located on the West Side of Audubon Road North of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad; Applicant: Bruno J. Silikowski/G.E. Osmonics: a. Request for Rezoning of the Western Portion of the Site from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); b. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Multiple Buildings (up to 14) on One Parcel; c. Site Plan Approval for 12 Buildings (One Clubhouse/Museum Building and 11 Storage Buildings Totaling Approximately 150,000 sq. ft.); and d. Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a Variance to Locate the Storm Water Pond within the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. 4. Adoption of the 2007 Budget & Levy. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 5. Announce Results of the City Manager’s Performance Evaluation (verbal). ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 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. GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. 1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. 4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. 5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 27, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha and Todd Hoffman UTILITY RATE UPDATE. Jessica Cook with Ehlers and Associates gave a power point presentation regarding the utility rate update. She reviewed the goals for the utility system, water and sanitary sewer funds (operating and trunk funds), assumptions for growth, capital improvements and the west water treatment plant. She stated it would be a policy decision of the City Council to decide how they wanted to fund the west water treatment plan. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the difference or the flip in allocation between the east and west water treatment plants. The council discussed the pros and cons of constructing the west water treatment plant sooner than later, i.e. operational costs, inflationary costs and timing. Jessica Cook showed graphs of cash balances for the water operating reserves and noted that currently the City is not fully funding depreciation. She recommended increases for hook-up fees, showing a graph of the cash balance for the water trunk fund. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the comparative rate chart between area charges and hook up charges. Councilman Lundquist asked for a discussion on the economics of paying fees now versus later. Jessica Cook noted it's more a matter of who's paying the carrying costs. Todd Gerhardt suggested the City look at implementing area wide charges for watermain and sanitary sewer. Councilman Peterson noted that if the City's going to change to an area wide charge, he prefers to do it sooner than later. Greg Sticha stated he would prepare a study in early 2007 for a change in 2008 on how other cities have handled the transition. Kate Aanenson noted there is a lot of development slated for 2008. Todd Gerhardt stated staff would begin an education process informing developers of the proposed change. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked why the City hasn't done area charges in the past. Jessica Cook noted she has seen an increasing trend in the last 4 years of cities using the area charge method. Councilman Lundquist stated he was not necessarily in favor of increasing rates sooner than later. Todd Gerhardt explained staff's position that doing area charges will allow the west water treatment plant construction to occur sooner and will create more equity for apartment building fees versus single family fees. Jessica Cook reviewed the sewer rates, cash balances for the sewer operating fund and recommended an increase in sewer hook-up fees of 6% annually for 2007 through 2016. She showed the cash balances for the sewer trunk fund, assumptions for storm water growth and capital improvements. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on how the City sets the fund balance amount. Todd Gerhardt noted that staff will propose staying with the proposed rate increase for December and will discuss changes in 2007 with the Key Financial Strategy planning. City Council Work Session - November 27, 2006 2 2007 BUDGET PRESENTATION: PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. Paul Oehme gave a power presentation on the 2007 budget proposal for the public works and engineering departments. Councilman Peterson asked if the City can investigate looking at lower wattage or power saving bulbs in the downtown median light fixtures as a cost savings measure. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 6:55 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 27, 2006 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 Lundquist and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Vicki Ernst 840 Cree Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY. Mayor Furlong read an invitation to the Tree Lighting Ceremony on Saturday, December 2nd. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Minutes dated November 8, 2006 (Election Canvass) -City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 13, 2006 -City Council Verbatim Minutes dated November 13, 2006 c. Resolution #2006-85: Pinehurst, Project 05-03: Accept Streets & Utilities. d. Resolution #2006-86: Water Treatment Plant Project 04-08-05: Reject Quote for Security with ADT and Accept Quote from Siemans. e. Award of Bid, Curry Farms Park Ponding Project. f. Approval of Environmental Excellence Award Nominations. g. Approval of 2007 Police Contract. h. Elected Official Travel Approval. City Council Summary - November 27, 2006 2 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Ross Gullickson presented the Sheriff's Office Area Report, Area Citation List and Community Service Officer Report for the month of October and updated the council on the community meeting that was held regarding the home invasion that occurred on Trail End Road. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked Sergeant Gullickson to elaborate on the sheriff's department system of patrolling neighborhoods at night. Todd Gerhardt asked Sergeant Gullickson to provide some typical crime prevention techniques residents can do to make their homes safer and to explain how neighborhoods that currently don't have a Neighborhood Watch program, who to contact to establish such a program. Chief Greg Geske presented the October report for the fire department and informed the council of a $173,025 federal grant the fire department received to replace their self contained breathing apparatus. LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AT 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD EAST. Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Resolution #2006-87: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the fifteen (15) foot wide sanitary sewer easement within 125 Lakeview Road, the legal description of which is attached. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. KOEHNEN AREA/YOSEMITE AVENUE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 07- 01: PUBLIC HEARING TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Konrad Wurm 1750 Koehnen Circle East Shirley & Willard Johnson 1660 West 63rd Street Adele Pint 1641 Koehnen Circle East Brian & Julie Evers 1799 Koehnen Circle West Laura Fridgen 6291 Blue Jay Circle Jeanne Burke 225 West 77th Street Doug Swanson 1780 Koehnen Circle Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item and Marcus Thomas with Bolton-Menk reviewed in detail the scope of the proposed improvements for roads, watermain, storm sewer City Council Summary - November 27, 2006 3 and sanitary sewer. Mayor Furlong clarified that there had been no changes in the scope and costs associated with the project since this item was previously before the council 10 or 11 months ago. Councilman Lundquist asked what could be done to bring down the costs on the project. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing and asked that the email submitted at the meeting be entered as part of the public record. Adele Pint, 1641 Koehnen Circle East asked about her request to level the ditch in front of her house, clarification on how the underground piping was going to run into the holding pond and tree replacement for trees taken down for construction of the holding pond. Konrad Wurm, 1750 Koehnen Circle East asked if the V style curb was still being proposed in the project and suggested installing a curb and gutter that would accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Laura Fridgen, 6291 Blue Jay Circle asked for clarification on the location of the sanitary sewer line and expressed again her disappointment in the project and her belief that her property will not benefit from these improvements. Doug Swanson, 1780 Koehnen Circle asked to have the same curbs as those in the Pheasant Hill Addition and expressed concern with drainage in the area. Jeanne Burke, 224 West 77th Street, which is not in the project area, asked for clarification on the classification and the costs associated with the upgrade of Yosemite Road. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Lundquist suggested including a bid alternate for the two different curb types. After council discussion the following motion was made. Resolution #2006-88: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the order for preparation of plans and specifications for City Project 07-01, Koehnen/Yosemite Reconstruction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEALS & EQUALIZATION PROCESS TO AN OPEN BOOK PROCESS. Angie Johnson, the Carver County Assessor reviewed the open book process and presented pros and cons to the change. Mayor Furlong asked about feedback from other cities currently using the open book process and how the process could be tailored to accommodate Chanhassen residents. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive spoke in favor of keeping the appeal process as it currently is with a local Board of Appeals and Equalization. Laura Fridgen, 6291 Blue Jay Circle who works for Ramsey County in the assessor's office, spoke in favor of the open book process and talked about how well the process works in Ramsey County. Mayor Furlong closed the public hearing. After council discussion the following motion was made. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the "Open Book Process" for the next 3 years with staff providing annual progress City Council Summary - November 27, 2006 4 reports on how the new process was received by the public. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilwoman Tjornhom and Mayor Furlong thanked Westwood Church, Sheriff Olson and Beth Hoiseth for the informational meeting that was held to calm the fears and answer questions of area residents regarding the home break-in that occurred on Trail End Road. Mayor Furlong provided an update on the meeting with the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt reported that Highway 312 is open to Dell Road, and provided an update on the progress of the water treatment plant. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2006 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 Lundquist and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Vicki Ernst 840 Cree Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody. Welcome for those here this evening and those watching at home. We're glad that you joined us. Hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving weekend. At this point I'd like to ask if there are, the council if there are any modifications or additions to the agenda for this evening. If not we'll proceed with the agenda as distributed with the packet. Without objection. With that I'd like to start with a public announcement. Specifically relating to our tree lighting ceremony. As our holiday season approaches and as we began this last, with the Thanksgiving weekend last week, the City of Chanhassen, in cooperation with our Chamber of Commerce and local businesses is proud to announce the 2006 Tree Lighting Ceremony at City Center Park. The event will be held this coming Saturday, December 2nd from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m.. At this time I'd like to invite all residents, their families, friends to join my family and me at City Center Park at that time. It will be a fun time. It will be plenty of activities. Refreshments. Caroling. A special visit from Santa and some of his helpers as well. There's no registration. The event is free and open to all who come and it's a fun time. I know our park department does a real good job getting the park ready for that lighting ceremony and I'd like to see a lot of people there joining us. We'll move now to our consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: I have been requested to pull item 1(b) for the purposes of tabling that so without objection we'll pull 1(b) and table that item. That was related to the least on the old Village Hall. So other than 1(b), is there any other items that members of the council would like to discuss separately on the consent agenda? Is there anyone else present in the audience that would like to discuss any items? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 2 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Minutes dated November 8, 2006 (Election Canvass) -City Council Work Session Minutes dated November 13, 2006 -City Council Verbatim Minutes dated November 13, 2006 c. Resolution #2006-85: Pinehurst, Project 05-03: Accept Streets & Utilities. d. Resolution #2006-86: Water Treatment Plant Project 04-08-05: Reject Quote for Security with ADT and Accept Quote from Siemens. e. Award of Bid, Curry Farms Park Ponding Project. f. Approval of Environmental Excellence Award Nominations. g. Approval of 2007 Police Contract. h. Elected Official Travel Approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good evening. Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. City staff. Good to see you all again. The sheriff's report and monthly statistics for the month of October, 2006. We had 130 criminal calls for service last month, consisting of 36 Part I crimes and 69 Part II crimes. Overall we saw an increase of 20 calls for service, criminal calls for service from September to October. Those calls were broken down in the following. Part I crimes, we had 1 aggravated assault that was reported in October which actually was an attempted assault. Not the actual act. The incident began in Excelsior and through the course of some investigation and events ended in Chanhassen and a juvenile suspect was arrested. We had 6 burglaries that were reported in October, 5 of which were to local businesses. The remaining incident was to a private residence. There were also 26 thefts reported in October. Theft reports have steadily decreased over the past 3 months, albeit slightly. We also had 3 vehicle thefts reported in October, only 1 of which was an actual theft. The other 2 were civil matters consisting of an unauthorized use by a family member and 1 vehicle repossession. Part II offenses increased from September to October from 69 to 94 calls. The biggest contributor to this was an increase in property damage reports from 27 to 39 reported incidents. Further research indicated that the majority of these calls were related to teepeeing, egging of property, mailbox vandalisms and damage to vehicles. Vehicles getting cheese paint, etc. We also saw a slight increase in fraud and identity theft complaints that in your monthly statistics packet is classified as theft related calls. The miscellaneous criminal category, which upon further City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 3 research I learned was a result of multiple traffic stops one night in which several juveniles were stopped prior to a teepeeing incident, and were cited with, for curfew violations. After that particular call the next morning I came into my office and there were 4 huge cases of toilet paper that ultimately ended up at the Carver County Food Shelf as a donation for families in need. There were 1,135 non-criminal calls for service and grand totals for the month of October, 1,265 calls were handled by deputies here in Chanhassen. 439 traffic stops were initiated in October and 300 citations were issued city wide in Chan. Finally to update the council and those at home regarding the community meeting that was held regarding the home invasion that occurred on Trail End Road. It was a very huge success. Over 110 people attended from various neighborhoods in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. We had several questions from those in attendance and also engaged in lengthy dialogue with citizens after the meeting. We received a lot of positive feedback and overall it was a big success. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Westwood Community Church for offering their facility on such a short notice. The Eden Prairie Police Department for their cooperation in the investigation, and for sending some delegates to the community meeting to be a resource to the Eden Prairie residents that attended. I also want to thank Beth Hoiseth, our Crime Prevention Specialist and all the patrol staff, who are too many to mention, who kept and are keeping a watchful eye on the neighborhood in an attempt to get them back to a sense of safety and security and normalcy. To update the council as well, as of yet no arrests have been made in this incident and the investigative staff are continually following up on leads as they come in. With that, that is the monthly statistic report for the month of October. I would turn to the council for questions, comments or concerns. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I had a question just because I think people are watching or thinking in their mind, at the meeting, which I attended, people were wondering about patrolling neighborhoods, and especially at night so if you want to go into your system of how you do that throughout our town. Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Absolutely. Chanhassen has 12 deputies that are assigned full time to Chanhassen, and those deputies work a variety of different hours during the day, evenings and overnight hours. On average in Chanhassen, during the day we have 2 to 3 officers that are assigned specifically to Chan with a local area car that helps out as well. At night we have an average of 3 to 4, sometimes 5 officers with the area car that are working. Those officers have been directed to provide proactive patrol in that neighborhood and have been doing a good job. We've also coordinated with Eden Prairie as that neighborhood is borders Eden Prairie and they have been providing officers from their departments as well. Mayor Furlong: To follow up on that, what about patrolling neighborhoods, other neighborhoods within the city and throughout the city. Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Other neighborhoods have had an increase in patrols as well Mr. Mayor, albeit the majority of our focus has been focused, efforts have been focused in that neighborhood given the crime that occurred there, but we are addressing other neighborhoods as well. In addition to that, starting this weekend focus more on the burglary aspect of what's been going on in Chanhassen. We have a reserve car that's going to be working in Chanhassen over the City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 4 weekend and some times overnight hours during the week that we can use as extra eyes and ears out in the neighborhoods as well. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So will that car then be targeting these areas on this map that shows the business burglaries? Sgt. Ross Gullickson: The business burglaries. That is one of their details, yes. Yes. And they'll be providing patrol of those neighborhoods. Foot patrol. I'm sorry, patrol of those business districts. Foot patrol of checking on doors and looking to note anything suspicious, and to be a visual deterrent as well. Todd Gerhardt: Sergeant, what are some typical crime prevention techniques that residents can do to make their home safer and if a neighborhood that currently doesn't have a crime, Neighborhood Watch program, who could they contact to establish such a program? Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Beth Hoiseth is the Chanhassen Crime Prevention Specialist and she can be reached at 952-227-1610. She's the resource, a vital resource in providing tips and security tool for both businesses, residences as far as how to remain alert and vigilant for suspicious activity, and if I could share one thing, one of the biggest ways to protect oneself and property is to keep things secure. Doors locked, so on and so forth. Removal of items of value from plain sight. I want to be very clear, even when you do this, we still have seen and are seeing people force entry into homes, cars, businesses, so on and so forth. So it is a not save all but it is a deterrent and it does work. If you keep your property locked up, your homes, your cars or valuables, it takes the opportunity away from the potential criminal and it does help. Todd Gerhardt: So when you're out patrolling and you notice a garage door open in a residential neighborhood, will the officer stop and let the individual homeowner know what to do about that? Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Yes. Officers have stopped by private residences as they see obvious security violations, if you want to call them that, with garage doors open. Garage doors open and they politely remind the occupant that this is what can happen. You have your vehicle, all of your valuables in your garage and often times the interior door leading into the residence from the garage is unlocked. And we've received some positive feedback from citizens who we've spoken to about that. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Your welcome. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time? Sergeant, thank you. Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske with our fire department's here this evening. Good evening Chief. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 5 Chief Greg Geske: Good evening council. We've had another slow month, which is good on our part. Did want to bring up last Tuesday night we had, ended up to be a double fatal accident in Chanhassen on Highway 5. It was in the news quite a bit. With the nasty weather coming in later this week, one of the, the 17 year old fatality in that did not have a seat belt on and I just wanted to bring up, remind everybody to use their seat belts. Not enforcing Sergeant Gullickson's laws but we're not enforcement but we do see what can happen when you don't wear a seat and she was ejected from the vehicle and would have been a lot better off come, had she had a seat belt on so want to take that example I guess and use it to everybody else. Make sure you wear your seat belts out there. Did get some good news last Friday. Fourth year in a row we've, the fire department and we had one individual who's been filling out forms the last couple years and we were awarded an assistance to fire fighter grant in the amount of $173,025.00. It's a federally funded program and that will be used to replace our existing self contained breathing apparatus so, to go along with some money that we had for, budgeted for replacement of the bottles so that we can replace the whole packs. We found about that as posted on their web site last week so, last Friday so. Again we want to thank one of the fire fighters that went through the work of applying year after year, the last 4 years to get that and Andrea Wentzlaff did quite a bit of work the last couple years here following that up so want to thank her for that. We'll have a release in the paper here about it this week so. Mayor Furlong: Congratulations. Todd Gerhardt: I did a great job of keeping my mouth shut on that so I didn't take Greg's thunder. Chief Greg Geske: Nice to bring good news here once in a while. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. This is just a great asset that the fire department was able to apply for and get. Roughly there's about $18 million dollars that is distributed throughout Minnesota in 2003 at least to area fire departments for equipment and operations so, I would say the average is somewhere around $50,000. High end was $200 and some in that year so $173 is a very nice amount for our fire department and you guys should be congratulated for being tenacious and sticking with it. I think over the years we didn't receive any money so this is really our first year that we've hit a home run on it so congratulations. Chief Greg Geske: In previous years we have made it to the final round. It's given up in different rounds. It was Round 6 that we were awarded this year. We did previous to that, we kind of had a good idea that we were going to get a grant because there's a questionnaire that goes out and asks if we're still interested and different information like that so usually on the internet forms and stuff, you find out if you get the questionnaire you're pretty much promised the grant but nothing's for sure so, we were pretty happy to get that. I'd say the last year, last 3 years we've got the Dear John letter so to speak. You know we made it to the last round last year until it came out so pretty excited about that. And we do have the air packs that we have, we were going to get a couple more years out of them but they are starting to show their age and you know it's a vital piece of equipment that we have on our back when we go into a fire so that's a great opportunity to replace those and get the new advanced stuff that's out there. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 6 Todd Gerhardt: Now I believe there's some matching money that we have to come up with. Chief Greg Geske: Yeah, like I say, we had it in the budget for next year, 2007. An amount that would go to replace the bottles. We definitely had request the bottles because those are required to be replaced 15 years by the Department of Transportation. And then we also have some matching money from our fund raiser that will go towards that so 30% of the whole purchase will come from the replacement money for the bottles next year in the budget, and the money from our fund raiser. Mayor Furlong: Well that's excellent news. Congratulations. That's very well done. Anything else from you at this point? No more money? Chief Greg Geske: No. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Chief? Or comments. No? Great, thank you. LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AT 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD EAST. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Again the vacation of the easement is requested by the Sienna Corporation at 125 Lakeview Drive. Lakeview Road. The new development is Lakeview development. The easement in question is just off of Lyman Boulevard. The easement was acquired back in 1979 for the previously, the previous development by the developer. With new development the easement is no longer needed or necessary. Staff is in agreement that the easement is no longer needed. The easement here is shown in pink along the westerly side of the development. And at this time, again it's a 15 foot easement no longer required. There is no private utilities associated or in this easement and it's no longer needed for city use. So at this time I would request that the public hearing be opened on this matter. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Again to confirm, there's nothing in there and no future need. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. At this time then I'll open the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Okay, seeing nobody then we'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to council. Any follow up questions for council? Any discussion? Is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 7 Resolution #2006-87: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the fifteen (15) foot wide sanitary sewer easement within 125 Lakeview Road, the legal description of which is attached. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. KOEHNEN AREA/YOSEMITE AVENUE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 07- 01: PUBLIC HEARING TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Konrad Wurm 1750 Koehnen Circle East Shirley & Willard Johnson 1660 West 63rd Street Adele Pint 1641 Koehnen Circle East Brian & Julie Evers 1799 Koehnen Circle West Laura Fridgen 6291 Blue Jay Circle Jeanne Burke 225 West 77th Street Doug Swanson 1780 Koehnen Circle Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This project was considered in 2006 for improvements. Unfortunately due to the State, Municipal State Aid rules we were not able to acquire Yosemite Street as a MSA route at that time for funding purposes. We have acquired the necessary documentation at this time and staff is requesting that the project be considered in 2007 for street improvements. The streets in the Yosemite/Koehnen area are 35 years old. The pavement management program that the City indicates that the streets are degradated to the point where street reconstruction is recommended at this time. Preventive maintenance such as sealcoat and, are no longer cost effective. The streets have been patched recently but this is only a temporary fix and it is very labor intensive for street department, the crews to be out there on a yearly basis to patch these streets to an acceptable level. We do have several issues with infrastructure in this area as well. The watermain in the Koehnen and Yosemite area has been documented to have 23 confirmed watermain breaks. The watermain is cast iron and is very susceptible to watermain breaks and is recommended to be replaced at this time. Also the sanitary sewer is in need of improvements. In some areas the sewer has become egged or deflected, and sags have been identified and these areas are recommended for replacement at this time as well. It is a concern for staff that these areas could, if left unimproved could cause sanitary sewer back-up's. The only way to really replace or improve these areas is to dig them up and replace them. Also storm water issues we'd like to address on this project are numerous. There are several localized drainage areas that we want to improve upon. We want to try to meet our storm water quality and quantity goals here in the city as well. That being said, staff would, is recommending that this area be considered for reconstruction in 2007. We do have, I did request that a representative from Bolton-Menk be here in attendance. He can give you a little more detail on the project itself. Marcus Thomas, if you'd like to go through your presentation at this time, I'd appreciate it. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 8 Marcus Thomas: Thank you Mayor and council. Is this on? Okay, thank you. Thank you for allowing Bolton-Menk to assist the City of Chanhassen with this project. We've appreciated working with the City and appreciate the input from the staff as we've prepared this feasibility study, as well as from the residents. We've had some informational meetings held, specifically on November 8th we had a neighborhood meeting where we were able to get good input from the neighbors and there are future informational meetings scheduled to be held on this project as well. There's a lot of information in the report. I'm going to go through it very concisely. If I leave any questions open, feel free to interrupt me as I go through my presentation. The general approach to the improvements are illustrated in Figure 1 of our report. Basically we're proposing street reconstruction throughout the neighborhood. Currently the streets exist as bituminous pavement streets with no curb and gutter. We are proposing to reconstruct those streets with concrete curb and gutter, offering additional pavement edge to the pour and drainage improvements throughout the neighborhood. Throughout the neighborhood all the streets will be reconstructed to approximate their existing street widths with the exception of Yosemite Avenue which is proposed to be widened to 32 feet. Again because this is a state aid route, there are minimum width requirements that are required to be adhered to. To the reconstruction. There are some retaining walls being constructed within the, proposed to be reconstructed within the intersection of Yosemite and 63rd based on minor grade changes and road width changes in that area. We do have the option to eliminate those retaining walls and construct embankments. We intend to have these conversations with respective property owners to determine what's going to fit best within that intersection. As Mr. Oehme mentioned, there are significant storm sewer improvements throughout the neighborhood. Currently there's very minimal storm sewer existing within the neighborhood. With the curb and gutter we will be constructing catch basins and drain inlets throughout the neighborhood. New storm sewer throughout the neighborhood. All of which would ultimately be draining into 3 new storm water ponds which are illustrated later in the report on Figure 24 but essentially 1 pond proposed to be located on the east side of Yosemite near the south end. A second pond proposed to be constructed on the south side of West 63rd Street. And then the third pond at the southeast corner of Koehnen Circle East. Again as Mr. Oehme mentioned, watermain throughout the project area is proposed to be replaced due to the numerous breaks, 23 to be exact, documented within the neighborhood. And we are proposing partial replacement of the sanitary sewer throughout the neighborhood based on a review of sewer videos identifying problem areas throughout. With that I'll go into a little bit more detail on the specific roadways within the Koehnen neighborhood, starting with Yosemite. In the report it's Figures 13 through 15 that I'll be referencing. Okay. Again Yosemite is proposed to be reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter. The limits of the reconstruction extend, at the south end near the address of 6481 Yosemite and will continue north to the northerly city limits. There'll be a new storm sewer constructed along Yosemite. Actually 2 independent storm sewer systems that are essentially split at the West 63rd Street intersection. There'll be a southerly system that drains south into our new storm water pond on the east side of Yosemite, and a second system extending from Creek Run Trail to the north where it will discharge into an existing ditch at the north end of Yosemite. Along Yosemite we are proposing the complete replacement of the existing watermain which exists along the east side of the roadway. We're also proposing that most of the sanitary sewer along Yosemite is replaced to address deficiencies that we found in the pipe during the televising. Specifically on this segment we saw a lot of indentations and egging or squashing of the pipe. So that's the street City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 9 reconstruction. The watermain reconstruction and sanitary sewer reconstruction and storm sewer for Yosemite. Councilman Lundquist: How wide is that street right now? You're going to make it 32. How wide is it now? Marcus Thomas: The existing street width varies because of the lack of curb and gutter but it ranges, it approximates about 28 feet existing. Councilman Lundquist: And 32 is back of the curb to back of the curb? Or pavement? Marcus Thomas: That's face of curb to face of curb. So the actual bituminous surface in this case would be 29 feet from edge of gutter to edge of gutter. Mayor Furlong: That's all going to be within the existing right-of-way though isn't it? Marcus Thomas: Exactly. Exactly, yeah. We're keeping the same alignment so more or less we're trying to share that additional width on both sides of the roadway. Keeping it centered within the right-of-way. Todd Gerhardt: Marcus, could you explain what egging is and scalding did you say or? Marcus Thomas: There were some indentations. Todd Gerhardt: Explain how that happens and. Marcus Thomas: Sure. The overall installation procedures for plastic sanitary sewer pipe have improved dramatically over the decade. This original construction probably wasn't constructed to the same standards that we're building plastic pipes today. Resulting in poor back fill procedures that can cause plastic pipes to squash. Basically go from a rounded shape to an egg shape from ground surcharges. The indentations that we see again these days we're back filling the pipe zone with sand. A finer material. Not always done back in the past. A lot more courser material could have been used causing those indentations and problems that we see in the plastic pipe so typically a plastic pipe is a very good construction material that we use for sanitary sewer. However like I said, over the decades the installation and constructions procedures have improved dramatically. Any other questions on Yosemite? I was just going to discuss West 63rd if there's no other comments or questions on Yosemite. West 63rd improvements are illustrated in the feasibility report on Figure 16 and 17. Again reconstructing the roadway here. Limits going from Cardinal Avenue at it's west end to Yosemite at it's east end. There will be storm sewer installed along this segment of West 63rd as well. Two different storm sewers. A westerly storm sewer system that extends between Cardinal and Blue Jay…capture storm water runoff and route it into the Yosemite, the southerly Yosemite Avenue storm sewer system that again outlets into that storm water pond to the south. We are proposing complete replacement of the watermain again along West 63rd Street. Along it's entire length. Along West 63rd however there are no proposed sanitary sewer improvements. We didn't see any real problems with sanitary sewer along that corridor. Any questions on West 63rd? Okay. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 10 Mayor Furlong: I guess the one question here, didn't ask it on Yosemite, has anything changed from when we looked at this 10-11 months back? Marcus Thomas: No. No, it's. Mayor Furlong: If there are changes, if you could point those out. Otherwise. Marcus Thomas: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: On Yosemite and on West 63rd there have been no changes to the proposed design or project scope. Marcus Thomas: That's correct. That's correct, yeah. Yeah, essentially the project scope as we presented it about a year ago is pretty much the same throughout the project area. I guess really no changes to speak of to be honest with you throughout. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thanks. Marcus Thomas: Audubon Circle. Again reconstruction. Replacing the watermain. Installation of new storm sewer that will drain into the pond at the north end of Audubon. Or at the south end of East Koehnen Circle. Here we did deviate from the City's standard cul-de-sac dimensions. Basically in response to resident concerns of encroachments into their front yards beyond the city's right-of-way. So we are essentially matching the existing shape of the cul-de- sac there. Moving onto Blue Jay Circle. Blue Jay Circle, being reconstructed again along it's similar alignment but again deviating from the standard 45 foot radius cul-de-sac to comply with the requests of the residents not to overly encroach onto their properties or cross city right-of- way to maintain a cul-de-sac bubble so we're essentially matching the existing dimensions of the cul-de-sac again on Blue Jay Circle. There will be a storm sewer constructed at the intersection of Blue Jay and West 63rd that will drain into the West 63rd system. We are proposing to replace the watermain along the east side of Blue Jay Circle, as well as the entire sanitary sewer along Blue Jay Circle. Cardinal Avenue. Illustrated on Figure 20 of the report. Again reconstructing the roadway along it's existing alignment between West 63rd Street to the northerly city limits. There will be new storm sewer constructed as a part of the improvements going south from Koehnen Circle West, or Koehnen Circle East. I'm sorry. Flowing into the West 63rd Street system that flows into the proposed pond on the south side of West 63rd Street. This storm sewer is going to be designed to capture the most frequent storms up to a 10 year event. For larger events that inundate the system, it will continue to over top and drain through an existing swale that flows westerly from Cardinal Avenue as it does today. Right now all of the rain events are routed down that swale as a part of these improvements again the more frequent storms will be captured in the storm sewer and drained away. Complete replacement of the watermain is proposed along the east side of Cardinal. And a single segment of sanitary sewer just south of Koehnen Circle West is proposed to be replaced to address some significant sagging in that sanitary sewer line. Koehnen Circle East, illustrated in Figures 21 and 22 of the report. Again reconstructing that roadway with new concrete curb and gutter along it's existing alignment. At the east end again a smaller cul-de-sac bubble, similar to what's out there today is being proposed City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 11 to minimize impacts to residents. There is new storm sewer proposed to be constructed flowing from the Deer Ridge intersection flowing east. Ultimately discharging into the proposed pond on the south side of Koehnen Circle East. We are, we've gotten some input from the property owner at 1641. Adele is here this evening. That has expressed some concerns with the drainage that currently exist across her front yard. She's got an existing drainage swale that captures water and routes it across her property. As a part of these storm sewer improvements we're able to pick up a lot of that water before it makes it's way to that existing swale. It appears that there might be some additional drainage coming from the private property to the west, but we are going to look at seeing if we can't minimize or even eliminate the water that's going into that swale and potentially eliminate that swale which is the property owner's desire. We'll be looking into that a little bit more. The watermain on this, along this corridor again is proposed to be reconstructed in it's entirety. And then along Koehnen Circle East, no proposed sanitary sewer improvements. Finally, Koehnen Circle West. Illustrated in Figure 23. Reconstructing this roadway with new curb and gutter. Again making a smaller cul-de-sac for the benefit of the abutting property owners. There will be a new storm sewer system that will drain the water from Koehnen Circle West into the Cardinal Avenue system again which drains into the West 63rd system. Watermain along this corridor will be replaced in it's entirety, and the westerly segment of sanitary sewer is proposed to be reconstructed due to significant deflections that we saw in that pipe. That concludes the scope of the proposed improvements. I was going to talk a little bit about cost and assessments but wanted to pause for any additional questions that the council may have on the leveled improvements. Mayor Furlong: Any questions on the scope of improvements? Councilman Lundquist: How far along Paul did we get when we looked at this 10 months ago? Where did we pull the plug? Paul Oehme: Right after we held the public hearing last year. We basically, well we were authorized preparation of the plans and specs which we have 99% of them done now. It's at that point we're ready to submit the plans for state aid. Trying to get that designation on Yosemite. That's where it dropped. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So it shouldn't take us long in the process much to do at this time? Paul Oehme: No. I mean we're ready to submit to state aid for their final plan review, which is about a month timeframe and we are anticipating, if we were to move forward with this project, to let the project earlier than we had anticipated last year. Todd Gerhardt: We did get the designation though on Yosemite. Paul Oehme: Yeah, the designation has been acquired so that hurdle is over. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions on the scope of the project? Okay. Mr. Thomas, you want to talk about others? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 12 Marcus Thomas: Certainly. Just want to quickly cover costs and assessments and schedule. Overall project costs for the street improvements, watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer improvements total, are estimated at this point at $3,083,730. Approximately breakdown of that cost is about $1.7 million dollars in street improvements. About $600,000 in watermain improvements. Approximately $200,000 in sanitary sewer improvements and approximately $600,000 in storm sewer improvements. Regarding assessments, it's the City's practice to assess 40% of the assessable street costs to benefiting properties. The cost for the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer are paid for 100% by their respective utility funds. With those assessable street costs being applied to the assessable properties, the estimated assessment for each property is estimated at $7,100 per property. Paul Oehme: Little clarification too. Under the street improvement funding category, the City is proposing to pick up the over sizing of the roadway costs for Yosemite, so basically the property owners that are on Yosemite would be assessed at the equivalency of basically their same roadway width at this time. We are increasing the pavement section on Yosemite as well and the city staff is proposing to pay for that extra cost and that's the allocation of the, under the Municipal State Aid funding that would cover those costs. Mayor Furlong: So any over sizing's going to be picked up 100% by the City under your proposal. No assessment to the property owners. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: The proposal is to assess them 40% of basically reconstruction of the existing width. Paul Oehme: Existing roadway width, correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Anything change in these numbers as we're sitting here 10- 11 months later? And the assessment I think is at, was that the same as what was proposed earlier this year? Paul Oehme: Yeah. I'm sorry, the assessment is, I think is the same as what we had proposed last year. There was a contingency amount that we had in under last year's project. That contingency more or less is gone away because of inflationary costs associated with construction and cost of construction materials now so there is a little bit, it is a little bit finer, how should I say it? You know. Todd Gerhardt: No fluff. Paul Oehme: No fluff in the cost anymore so that's what we're proposing. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Thomas or staff? On the funding or the project scope. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 13 Councilman Lundquist: Paul or Marcus, any opportunity that we have for lowering the cost or things that would drive it lower? Marcus Thomas: Our estimate right now, we believe we are conservative. We'll see how the bids come in. One thing we are planning on doing to increase competition for the storm sewer is to bid an HDP pipe alternative to concrete pipe so we basically will have competing interests. Competing suppliers on the storm sewer that will hopefully bring the cost down on that. It typically does. Typically the concrete pipe is more expensive until they get the plastic guys in there too so. I would say that's probably going to be one of our biggest advances towards keeping the costs as low as possible. There's not much for amenities if you will on this project. This is a straight forward infrastructure improvement project and we're essentially covering the essential needs of the infrastructure. So as far as eliminating portions of the work to bring down the cost, not a whole lot of opportunities to do things like that. Todd Gerhardt: Marcus, how about the timing of the bidding of this? Do you think that's a key opportunity for this project? Is April too far? Or is that a key time that, have contractors already got work lined up prior to then or is that kind of the key time for developers or contractors to look for work? Marcus Thomas: Sure. Right now Chanhassen is well positioned to bid early in 2007. As a matter of fact the schedule reflects a proposed bid opening in February, which is the earliest bid opening I've got on my book for 2007, so we are getting a good jump primarily because we've had the opportunity to advance on the plans, as Mr. Oehme suggested, so we should be able to have our project out there, one of the first out therefore bidding. When the contractor's are their hungriest and are going to give us their best prices so the timing is good. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? If not, anything else at this point? Mr. Oehme or Mr. Thomas. Paul Oehme: There was one email that staff received from a property owner that I think we handed out earlier this evening for comment. Mayor Furlong: We'll take that as part of the public hearing comments. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Will you be sure that that gets into the record as well? Paul Oehme: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. At this time I would open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward and address the council on their opinions on the project or to have questions answered by the staff or others so if you'd like to address the council, participate in the public hearing, please come forward at this time. State your name and address for the record and we'd be happy to listen to you. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 14 Adele Pint: I'm Adele Pint, 1641 Koehnen Circle East and just a couple follow up questions. On the Koehnen Circle East project, were the plans changed in any way between last year and this year? Paul Oehme: No. Adele Pint: Okay, because the reason I ask that is, last year I asked the question about the ditch in front of my house and was told that that would be leveled. And I guess that's when I, now I'm understanding that that's not going to be, or I realize you're going to review that again but that made me wonder if the plans had changed as to how the underground piping was going to run into the holding pond. Marcus Thomas: There's been no proposed changes to the storm sewer configuration on Koehnen Circle East since we last presented this 10-11 months ago. What we have now, to our benefit, again are some construction plans that are further along today and give us greater detail and exactly what's going to happen than we did 10 or 11 months ago so if we did speak about eliminating the ditch last year, it was based on information that we had at that time. We can say now that that plan's drawn together, that don't actually go into that private property on your yard to do that. But we are going to look at the potential. Adele Pint: I would appreciate that. Another question would be as far as the holding pond is concerned, will you be replacing trees that you'll be taking down? Marcus Thomas: Kind of a small picture of that pond on Figure 26 of the report but we are proposing to remove, it looks like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 trees that are centered within that pond. At this time there's no landscaping proposed as a part of the improvements beyond turf restoration so there are some that are proposed to be removed but at this time none to be replaced. Adele Pint: I would appreciate it if you could consider that. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate those questions and comments. Anybody else that would like to address the council or have questions answered? Konrad Wurm: Konrad Wurm, 1750 Koehnen East. Does the project still have the V style curb throughout or has that been changed? Marcus Thomas: Yeah, we're proposing the traditional 6 inch high concrete curb with the 18 inch wide gutter. Konrad Wurm: And there are no sidewalks? Marcus Thomas: There are no sidewalks proposed in the project. Konrad Wurm: Most of the surrounding neighborhoods have the surmountable V curb. Back in Tom's old neighborhood there, and with the 28 foot streets and no sidewalks, it often becomes City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 15 necessary for bicycles and pedestrians to get off the roadway quickly and I guess I'd like you to consider a V style. Mayor Furlong: I think I understand what you're saying Mr. Wurm. Help me understand what's being proposed. Marcus Thomas: Again the curb style was kind of quickly draw a sketch of it but it's in cross section. It's basically that style of curb where you've got your street cross…flowing to the gutter and then it comes up 6 inches here to the boulevard and matches that. So it's a traditional 6 inch high curb with an 18 inch wide gutter there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then there would be curb cuts for driveways. Marcus Thomas: Exactly. Konrad Wurm: I guess my main thing was, it's very hard for bicycles to get off the roadway. Mayor Furlong: What's the other style is more of a just a steady slant, correct? Paul Oehme: Steady slant, right. And that's typically put in under new development situations. Mayor Furlong: Why, where's the difference or how would that, what would be the advantages or disadvantages to putting that into this area? Paul Oehme: Well. Mayor Furlong: Because right now there's just kind of rolled bituminous curbs in some places right? Paul Oehme: Yeah we find that a majority of property owners like the raised style that we're proposing. The B6-18 curb and gutter. With the surmountable curb and gutter, especially with smaller vehicles, more compact vehicles, you can, and depending upon your, the grade of your driveway, you can bottom out on your, with your vehicle because of the steep incline on those surmountable curb type installations. We like the B6-18 curb and gutter, our snowplow drivers can ride right up against that, the raised curb and follow the plows along. It's a little bit harder to follow the plow along the surmountable and we have in the past, and damaged lawns because we've gotten too far out into the properties. And thirdly drainage. It's a better drainage system. It's a higher raised curb. It channels the water a little bit better as well. So for those points, it's what we are proposing to install B6-18 curb. Councilman Lundquist: Difference in costs? Paul Oehme: They're virtually the same cost. Councilman Lundquist: Does the snowplow banging against the steep one hurt it? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 16 Paul Oehme: No. We ride it, unless you hit it head on typically you're not going to damage it. Councilman Lundquist: It eats up the snowplow brake instead of curb. Paul Oehme: Typically. Yeah, you can feel it a lot better so. A lot easier. Konrad Wurm: The snow plow won't damage it unless the sod is a little high, isn't that true? If the sod is kept down, the blade's at an angle. Paul Oehme: Yeah, typically the, if the sod is kept down, typically we have the sod about an inch higher I think than the curb itself, just for maintenance purposes. So if the snowplow gets above the top of the surmountable curb, it will damage the sod. Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else that would, I'd invite you to come forward now. Laura Fridgen: Hi. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Laura Fridgen: Laura Fridgen, 6291 Blue Jay Circle and I want to clarify something. Or maybe I need clarification. You mentioned that the sanitary sewer would be running along the road, correct? Marcus Thomas: Yeah, we are proposing to replace the sanitary sewer along Blue Jay Circle. Laura Fridgen: Okay, so this is my property here…and my sanitary sewer goes out and over this way, so how's that going to affect me? Marcus Thomas: It won't affect you. The sewer's going to be reconstructed but your service will be reconnected to the new pipe. Yeah right now you're saying you come out… Laura Fridgen: It butts up to the back of…and runs along back here. Marcus Thomas: Sure, sure. Yeah, no impacts to your service or the way it operates or anything like that. It will just simply be reconstructed. Councilman Lundquist: You're replacing the trunk along the road, not any, he won't touch anything on your property. So the line that's on your property stays there. Just the stuff along. Laura Fridgen: I understand that. It's just that we just, we did just replace all of our sanitary sewer about 5 years ago and it's, it was a substantial cost to us and now it's going to be re-routed across the street in the opposite direction. Marcus Thomas: No. We're, if you're connected right here right now. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 17 Laura Fridgen: No, we're not. We are connected, it's kind of hard to tell. This is 6291 right here. And this is my neighbor. So we came out the back and they went over and somewhere along this line here. So it comes out, angles over to the sanitary sewer line over there. Marcus Thomas: Okay. Well let me be clear. Anything that's happening on the private property is not going to be touched as a part of this project. What will be reconstructed as a part of this project again is the main trunk line running down the center of the street and anything that's connected to it right now will simply be reconnected right at the same spot without any disturbance of that line beyond the center of the street. So there'll be absolutely no change to any of the alignments of the service pipes. Laura Fridgen: So what happens to this connection that we hooked up to somewhere along this line? What happens to that? Is that just vacated or is it? Marcus Thomas: No. No, if there's a connection. I think I see what you're talking about right here. There is a line that comes through the private properties. It looks like it connects right into that manhole right there. Laura Fridgen: So that, this line will continue to be functional? Marcus Thomas: Exactly. Exactly. Laura Fridgen: Okay. Well, I expressed my concerns and my disappointment with this project because I don't see any direct benefits to my property with this. Curbs, gutters. That that is going to increase the property value on my house. And it didn't matter last time so I'm assuming that this is not going to matter either. It sounds to me like this was delayed because of the funding from the State on Yosemite. Is that correct? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Laura Fridgen: Okay. Well then that's really all I had to say. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Doug Swanson: Doug Swanson, 1780 Koehnen Circle. In all your plans and everything else, when we were talking about the curb and gutter, which the Pheasant Hill Addition has the swaling type of, instead of that 6 inch tall curb. I mean I grew up in Minneapolis. I never really liked the 6 inch curb and I really didn't move out here to, it looks like Edina again. Is there any way that that thing can be changed because at Pheasant Hill, how are you going to tie up to the Pheasant Hill Addition when you hit 63rd? Marcus Thomas: Are you talking, is this the connection right here? On West 63rd. Doug Swanson: Yes. Marcus Thomas: Just west of Cardinal. Yeah, it would simply be just a taper transition. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 18 Doug Swanson: Won't that look kind of funny? Wouldn't you be better off extending what is already there? Aesthetics, I mean. Marcus Thomas: I guess, aesthetics, that's typically the way most transitions are done. It's usually over about 10 feet so it's pretty slight to the eye but. Doug Swanson: That's goofy, but whatever. I'm not an engineer but it would be, make more sense to actually continue on with an area that's got it the same way. The other thing is, you talked about the 6 inch tall but have you changed anything as far as elevation? Are you dropping the actual top of the road 6 inches too so that people don't end up with water laying in their driveways and sidewalks. Not sidewalks but walkways and perimeter of their property. Marcus Thomas: Well that's an important consideration and within the entire neighborhood we want to minimize impacts to driveways… Doug Swanson: Right. The whole hill on my side actually slides all the way down to Koehnen Circle West and Cardinal and then goes down, around the opposite side and goes through that back side that you're talking about down into the valley over in Galpin Lake Road. Where that big swamp is down there. That big valley behind the other houses on the opposite side of Koehnen Circle. I've watched it where we've had 3 to 4 inch rain and it just rushes and goes around behind the…house. Marcus Thomas: You're talking about the runoff that comes off of Cardinal? Doug Swanson: Cardinal and Koehnen West and circles around the houses and goes behind there. Marcus Thomas: Right. Doug Swanson: And that's always had standing water there. Marcus Thomas: And that actually should be improved as a part of this project because again the new storm sewer's proposed to catch those more frequent storm events… Doug Swanson: Will they change anything as far as the alignment? As Cardinal moves into Shorewood. Marcus Thomas: No, all the roadways are proposed to be constructed along their same lines. Doug Swanson: Thank you. (There was a tape change during discussion of the comparison between V style and surmountable curbs.) Paul Oehme: …to the casting which allows for more intake during higher rain events, so there's. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 19 Mayor Furlong: So once more for the non-engineers. You've got the storm drain where the storm water runs into coming down the curb. You're saying the opening is bigger with the 6 inch curb, the more traditional curb than it is with the surmountable. Paul Oehme: Correct. There's more capacity in the B6-18 versus the surmountable. Mayor Furlong: So more capacity, what does that mean in terms of major storm event? What happens? Paul Oehme: The water can dissipate faster. It would be captured in those structures a lot more readily and now flowing down the road and getting basically into the pipes more than flowing past the curb or past the castings. And also those raised B6-18 castings allow, if there's twigs or branches or leaves, allows those, that type of material to get into the system and clean itself out a lot more readily than some of those castings that we're talking about with the surmountable curb. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Did you have something else you wanted to add? If you could come up to the microphone so we get it on. Konrad Wurm: I guess as, the difference in styles, if there's that much of a difference, why is a new housing or new additions allowed to put that style of curb in if it's that critical? Paul Oehme: Again it's not critical but it does allow for better water quantity intakes at those areas. We put the surmountable curbs in under development conditions because the developers don't always know exactly where those driveways are going to be installed. So if you put in a B6-18 curb, you might have to rip out your curb and gutter to relocate that driveway. Under this, under a reconstruction type of situations, we know exactly where these driveways are so it's easier to install that. Konrad Wurm: What do we do when the lot has not been developed then? If you put the 6 inch curb in, what do you do when the lot has not been developed? Paul Oehme: Oh, let's say a lot, a vacant lot. Mayor Furlong: A vacant lot in this neighborhood you're saying? Paul Oehme: Right. If there's a vacant lot, if we know there's, we would like to try to identify where that driveway is. If we don't know, if we can't identify where that driveway is we would still put the B6-18 curb in and let the developer or the property owner put in the curb cut in the future to, the location that he would prefer to locate it at. Mayor Furlong: So the property owner, if there's a vacant lot, if the property owner wants the curb cut in a particular spot, that's where you'd place it. Otherwise you just run it along. Paul Oehme: Correct. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 20 Mayor Furlong: Without a curb cut. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, if I may. I think the question is too that if the developer comes in after the fact and there's B6 out there, he's going to have to cut out the existing B6 and put back B6 curb, and flare the driveway to match up with the B6. Konrad Wurm: Yeah, you're talking about a reconstruction. If you put the other curb in there, they can almost put it anywhere. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Konrad Wurm: So we'd have to add more cost to the lots that would be future development. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Konrad Wurm: Then in regard to the castings and the, on the V style that's open in the back, I believe they also make castings on the V style that come up the incline, don't they? Paul Oehme: I'm not aware of any. Are you Marcus? Marcus Thomas: Not with an open grade like that. They do indeed go up the curb but they don't have that high capacity box opening in it. Basically the B6 curb is going to carry more water more quickly to grates that can take more water more quickly. So you're going to have more capacity in your curb. You're going to have more capacity in your grates than you would with the V style curb. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the council on this matter? Jeanne Burke: Hi. My name is Jeanne Burke and I live at 225 West 77th Street so I'm not in this development and I have a fresh new outlook on this whole idea. First of all my question is Yosemite Road. Is this the same road I'm thinking of that doesn't really go anywhere? It turns off of Lake Lucy Road and just, just you know, it doesn't really tie into too much. Why are we expanding that road? Is there a lot of traffic on there? Every time I've been on that road I've been kind of like the solo driver. I've lived here for 22 years and haven't ever thought of that as a street that needs our attention. What classification is it under that it needs to be widened to 32 feet? Marcus Thomas: It's a local roadway. Classified as local roadway, however it's on the municipal state aid system, which has minimum geometric standard requirements to be reconstructed at 32 feet wide. So because it is a MSA route, you need to comply with the MSA design standards which is 32 feet wide. Jeanne Burke: But when it was built it didn't comply with those standards? Marcus Thomas: It was not on the MSA system at that time. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 21 Jeanne Burke: Okay. How does it get on the MSA system? Was it requested to be put on it? Marcus Thomas: Yes. Jeanne Burke: Because of this project? Marcus Thomas: I guess I'd have to defer to the City Engineer but the City's allowed so many miles of roadway on their system and they're able to choose at their discretion what routes go on that system. Jeanne Burke: Well, it's just my personal opinion that if this was a road in Chanhassen that actually you know was connecting streets and was used to get places, it's basically kind of a dead end road. It dead ends at Lake Lucy and it dead ends at Powers Boulevard, right? It just runs straight through there. That's little segment of road. I think it's kind of an over kill to be putting curbs and all, widening this particular street when it doesn't seem to be a network that we really you know, I mean there's not a huge, it can't be developed anymore back there. So where is the traffic coming from? Mayor Furlong: Well, I'll refer those question to the City Engineer in terms of where it starts. Where it terminates and why we're doing it and the designation of the MSA. Paul Oehme: Sure. Yosemite does take more trips than 63rd Street or Koehnen Circle or… Jeanne Burke: I know, right. Paul Oehme: So it does meet the criteria for MSA route and thus the State has approved it as a MSA route. The City of Shorewood also, in conjunction with the City, both requested that this segment of roadway be designated as a MSA roadway. Apple Road in Shorewood does connect to Powers Boulevard so. Jeanne Burke: Well have they done a study on the, you know like that amount of traffic versus what runs on Powers Boulevard? How does that compare to Powers Boulevard? Paul Oehme: Yeah, Powers Boulevard is a minor arterial collector. I mean that's a different category. That's a county road. This is a local road. This takes local traffic to… Jeanne Burke: Well right but I'm saying have they done a count? I mean about the traffic. Tell me how many cars are on that road on a particular day. Paul Oehme: Well I don't have that off the top of my head. Jeanne Burke: Well we should have it if we're going to spend this kind of money. Councilman Lundquist: If we rebuilt, reconstructed Yosemite at 28 feet wide without MSA dollars, what does that do to the average assessment value? My understanding is we're taking City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 22 State aid money and putting it into the pool to reconstruct this road and that thereby benefits all of the properties because it lowers the overall contribution of the assessments to the total project as a whole. So by not upgrading that to a MSA road, and required geometric standards, all of the residents are going to pay more for the entire project to reconstruct that road at the same amount of width that it is now. I mean your points are valid that we need to spend our money wisely but by putting this, getting this on the MSA I believe that it lowers the overall. Mayor Furlong: Maybe not the assessments. I don't know if Paul to answer your question, maybe not the assessment portion because the assessments are just for the existing width but it lowers the overall cost to all the taxpayers in the city. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And explain again. We got into this before but it's a public hearing. MSA dollars, I mean we're using acronyms here, which you do always in government speak. It's Municipal. Paul Oehme: Municipal State Aid, yep. Mayor Furlong: It's money that's generated when all of us fill up our gas tanks. It's gas tax money that comes through the State and back to the cities for purposes of reconstructing and building roads. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: So I mean, I think the question is who requested it. The City requested it and the reason was, this is money that all of us pay in gas taxes that's available to the City to reconstruct roads. Jeanne Burke: Well I understand that. I guess my question was, why reconstruct a road you know and put all this into a road that is of minor significance like Yosemite? But now you're saying it's because the money, we can get money for that road. Mayor Furlong: Well, the reason, and Paul maybe reiterate, at the beginning of his presentation he talked about all the variety of reasons why this road and this entire area was being selected for this project. It's not just, it's not because we have money and we've got to spend money. That is not the reason so, and I didn't hear you say that but some could infer that. Jeanne Burke: Yeah, okay. Mayor Furlong: Why are we pick these roads and why are we doing this area? Paul Oehme: Again I'm real briefly. The City does have a pavement management program. We grade our city streets. These streets have been, are over 35 years old now. They are in need of improvements. We don't, we can't do a simple sealcoat anymore to maintain these roads. We are out there on an annual basis patching the potholes. Very time consuming. Very costly. It's City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 23 not very productive. We do have underlying infrastructure deficiencies out here. The watermain. We've identified 23 watermain breaks out in this area. We want to replace that watermain because of the service issue to the property owners. The sanitary sewer even on Yosemite is egging and we are concerned about future maintenance of that. We can't televise in those lines easily anymore. In the future we anticipate it's going to be harder and harder to maintain, if not impossible. So for all those reasons we have proposed this area to be reconstructed. Now the funding is another matter. We're trying to be, do our due diligence here and try to come up with a cost effective way to pay for this roadway. One way is to use MSA funds. We have worked with Shorewood on this issue and they are in agreement. You know in the future Apple Road potentially will be upgraded as well in the City of Shorewood, they can use MSA funds at that time. Yosemite again is 32 feet wide that we're proposing. Our city standard roadway width is 31 feet so we are more or less maintaining our current standard roadway width out in this area so for all those reasons, you know we're trying to, we're trying to use our money cost effectively and try to lower basically the assessment amounts and pay for this project with all available resources. Jeanne Burke: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else? No one else wants to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to close the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Furlong: Let's bring it back to council now for follow up questions. Any additional questions? Councilman Lundquist: I would recommend that we get a bid alternative for the, yeah the V curb. Surmountable curb. Especially as long as we're, have minimal effort to do that I think so let's figure that when it comes in and see whether there's any cost difference then go from there. Mayor Furlong: Other comments or discussion? And my thought is on the curb, it seems to be an aesthetic issue and I don't recall this being brought up a few months ago now when we talked about this but a few people have. It sounds to me like there are advantages to the B6 curb. The traditional curb from a storm water management, and I remember the storm water in this area was a big issue and so we've had, perhaps we're coming, last time we talked about this we were a couple months after the Labor Day 100 year storm and the October 100 year storm of 2005 and so maybe that wasn't the issue but I think we need to remember that you know we're improving storm water management in this area and bettering, help in the next 100 year storm, whenever City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 24 that one comes. I think that's something to consider. Let's get the bid alternative. I don't think that will be costly and then I guess the question is, let's consider the pros and cons or the benefits of each and evaluate those and maybe there'll be time to get a little more input as well as information to the residents between now and when those bids open in February that we can take a look at that and get some more feedback and make some sense. Councilman Lundquist: It's going to be a plug number for the contractor anyway, whether he puts in a B6 or a surmountable so… Mayor Furlong: That will give us the option I would think and would give us time to address some of these concerns and make an informed, objective decision. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, the only point I think Paul brought up earlier was that we get numerous complaints from people on surmountable curbs so you may want to talk to other friends, relatives that may have the surmountable curb. As you go through there, your car will bottom out depending on the grade of your driveway and things like that because when you go up, you've got to go up and down when you go through that so we get constantly calls to pull out the surmountable and blend in the B6 in certain neighborhoods so just wanted to make that statement. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other discussions? Discussion items on this project. Councilman Peterson: I think we've brought up the issues before about the MSA dollars so I think, not…we're being proactive on the sewer and water issue, which I think is certainly an issue and if the pavement management system says this is a road that needs to be fixed, certainly we've trusted that before so I have no reason not to trust it today so. Add those two things together, it's pretty clear cut that we should move ahead. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I've debated most the evening…we did have these discussions earlier…why we were widening the roads and doing the expand, yet we're not passing all the assessments onto the citizens for widening the road. They're still getting the value of getting money from the State. I think that was addressed months ago and assessments I think are like the next…taxes. No one likes them and they all try to avoid them, yet they're inevitable and so I also think that we should move on with this project and continue… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist, anything else? Okay. Yeah, I would concur. I think that this was a good project before. We had hoped to get it done this last summer. For reasons beyond our control we weren't able to. I think we may, while some of the cost estimates have gone up and that squeezed the contingency, I think we may have been surprised if we tried to do projects this summer. I think we got, saw some price increases beyond everyone's expectation with regard to bituminous and other material costs. Because of petroleum prices so we may have benefited from that, just with the timing of it as well. But it made sense before, for all the reasons considered I believe it still makes sense now and I think we should indeed go forward with it. So at this point I would ask, is there a motion to authorize preparation of plans and specifications for City Project 07-01. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 25 Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Resolution #2006-88: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the order for preparation of plans and specifications for City Project 07-01, Koehnen/Yosemite Reconstruction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Motion prevails. Thank you. Thank you and we look forward to the continued involvement of the residents, not only on the issues discussed tonight but on all the other issues that they brought up at the open houses and we appreciate your efforts there to make this project as good as possible. Yeah, why don't we just take a short recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let's assume about 5 minutes. The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEALS & EQUALIZATION PROCESS TO AN OPEN BOOK PROCESS. Mayor Furlong: This was an item that we discussed at our last work session. We didn't have the full complement of our council there because of timing issues. If this is something that we wanted to do, the decision would need to, for next year, the decision needs to be made before December 1st, which is Thursday, or Friday, and so that's why, and it requires a public hearing so that's why we're doing this tonight and would hold the benefit of council as well as comments from the public and more information from the County Assessor who stayed tonight so why don't you go ahead and maybe explain the process a little bit more and some of the things that we talked about 2 weeks ago and what are the issues to consider. Angie Johnson: Okay. Good evening. You've been used to having your local Board of Appeals and Equalization, which is made up by the council here. In the past we've been scheduling a half hour before your regular scheduled meeting for the convenience of the Board. Usually the City of Chanhassen, because of the appeals, we usually have been there in 2 nights of the regular, the first night and then usually we convene to a second night. Now the open book, what would happen actually, our staff would be handling all the appeals exactly the same way as what we do it right now. The only difference is, the difference is that the open book, when they get their valuation notice rather than saying that they have to attend here first for an appeal process before they can go on to the County Board, what it will do is that they will have one week that our staff will be in our office to take all the phone calls and to make an appointments with people that want to appeal either their valuations or classifications, so we will be giving them more opportunity. And basically they can also attend the County Board of Appeals without attending the local board, so people that have missed the local board, they still can go on to County Board. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 26 Where in the past when you do have the local board, they can't. And basically we'll handle it just as efficiently. Right now we're having members of my staff, plus Hennepin County are coming here for the local Board. We're getting paid to come here in the evening and you're paying mileage for these people also. And so just to let you know that basically when it's going to be held during the office hours or if we need to make an appointments in the evening, we will do so to help out the citizens of Chan, the City of Chanhassen. And we have had other open book meetings and they've gone very well on our part. The one thing that council should realize too is that anything that comes prior to 10 days before your local board, we can handle it internally. It is not even brought to the council. And so the local Board of Appeals, any of those appeals that we have settled prior to that, you're not even going to see. And so it's probably about, well the same kind of process. You're just not going to see those probably handful that are coming here either before they contact our office or if they are in disagreement with what our valuation you know stated. And so they still can go through the same appeal at the County Board or Tax Court. Those appeal process do not change for them. So the only one that we're looking at changing here is just that one night, and last year, if you remember, the Council had their work shop first and so when we had our local Board of Appeals scheduled at 6:30. It started late. There was a little, some disgruntled taxpayers that were here that didn't think that the council heard what they wanted to express that night. And also I don't think we were given the opportunity to express what our findings were at that time either because at 7:00 you wanted to move on. And so it would eliminate also that type of you know, having your property owners a little upset with that type of process. So if the council has any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Ms. Johnson? Ms. Tjornhom, anything? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have comments about it. Feelings about it but questions, no. Mayor Furlong: I guess the question I have, and just for clarification, because I want to make sure I heard it correctly. You said up until 10 days before the Council, historically we sat as the Board of Review, if a property owner had a question about their values, they could contact you and what? Go through a same process as they'd be going through here? Angie Johnson: Well first of all when the property owner, yes. First of all when property owners call, we try to answer their questions over the phone. A lot of times that's all it takes. With our GIS and with our sales and everything, we can pinpoint sales in their neighborhood you know like that now. And we can tell them what the sales have been doing in their neighborhood. A lot of times that's all they need to know. From there if they still you know are looking at, they don't feel their value is correct, we schedule appointments to go out to that home because we do have to have a physical inspection to that property in order for them to appeal their value. And so we make an appointment with them. Do a physical inspection of their property. Make sure all of our information is correct. We come back and pull out sales of comparable properties and run an analysis through and then basically we'll get back to that property owner with either our value we feel is still correct or if we need to make an adjustment and ask them if they're satisfied with it. If they're satisfied, we make the change in-house and basically that's the end of the process. And we can do that to all the properties up til 10 days prior to the meeting of the local Board of Appeals. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 27 Mayor Furlong: And if this change were made to an open book process, then there would be no 10 day limitation and basically you said rather than people having to be here at City Hall at 6:30 on a Monday in April, there would be a time throughout the week that they could come to start that process. Angie Johnson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: How many people annually do you work with in that before 10 day period? Up to that 10 days before. Is that something that you often do? Angie Johnson: Oh yes. Very much so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Angie Johnson: Probably for the whole county, probably 75% of our appeals are handled in- house. They don't even go on to a local Board of Appeals. Mayor Furlong: And is that similar in Chanhassen or do you have any sense of. Angie Johnson: I'm saying county wide. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But you don't see any differences in Chanhassen participating that way versus. Angie Johnson: No, not really. It's just you know numbers. You know Chanhassen first, biggest jurisdiction so you're going to have more people calling than what your City of Hamburg. Mayor Furlong: Right. Right. Angie Johnson: Yeah, but overall you know the percentages are going to be about the same. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Todd Gerhardt: Angie, are there any other cities in Carver County that do the open book process? Angie Johnson: Last year we had 3 that had the open book. Chaska, Norwood-Young America and Watertown. This year Chaska I know still is going with open book. I've also been contacted by the City of Hamburg that's going to open book. Todd Gerhardt: Any feedback did you use in those processes? Did you survey people that may have appealed? Did they give you any feedback on the open book versus the old process that may have went through both? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 28 Angie Johnson: No, we didn't do any surveys or anything and the thing is, I guess there are differences that they didn't have to go to the local Board of Appeals. And in Chaska last year, we didn't have anybody that came to County Board and so basically all the appeals were just handled through our office and I guess we satisfied those constituents there. Mayor Furlong: On an appeal, how often do you end up changing the value? You can't go higher with the value once the assessment's in place, but… Angie Johnson: Well we could if we wanted to but we usually don't. We can increase values and you could too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Angie Johnson: But um, as far as… Mayor Furlong: How often have you kept it the same? From your answer I assume you haven't increased them. Angie Johnson: Oh yeah. Mayor Furlong: That you're aware. How often, any sense on how often they've been kept the same and how often they've been decreased? Angie Johnson: Yeah, I didn't go back and look at our statistics but I would say, probably 50/50. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Would all those follow the, a personal inspection of the property? Angie Johnson: Unless we just answered their questions over the phone. If they were satisfied with our answers that we gave them, then we didn't go forward but we always offered it to the property owners, that if they wanted us to come out there and do a physical inspection and do some more analysis with, and so half of them probably didn't have you know. Mayor Furlong: Is there any way we could get the best of both worlds? Could we have a week and, because we're looking at change and I think there's, well and I don't want to presume what people's thoughts are but you know, the having to be at City Hall on a Monday night at 6:30 in April I think is difficult for some people and so is there any way that either during that 10 day period or prior to that day period we could have it effectively an open book process so that we can, because again we've got quite a few of the residents in the county that we can basically accomplish the same thing, thereby possibly minimizing even the few people that come on a Monday in April, but if somebody still wants to come locally they could. Are there statutes that are keeping us from doing something like that or? Angie Johnson: Well yes, there are statutes. It doesn't say where we have to hold the open book. We could have our staff come up here and have you know, hold the open book here in the council chambers or someplace where it would be convenient during times that, but usually what we would do, we'd have it during you know our office hours pretty much is what it would be. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 29 Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? If not, let's open up the public hearing then and invite any interested party to come up and address the council on this issue. Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm in favor of keeping the process the way it is. I think that people are much more comfortable talking to the elected representatives of their local community on taxation issues than they would be addressing some folks at County after they had gone through the process and learned that they disagreed with the county assessment. When I was a resident of Chanhassen probably for 2 or 3 years our value had gone up significantly. I was a very young person then and I came and I met with the council and there was an adjustment in our taxes and although it was uncomfortable for me somewhat, I think the process worked well and I think, as a young person was much more comfortable speaking to local authorities than I would have been dealing with the County authorities. And it was, as uncomfortable as it may be for you to address people you know about taxation, I think that's one of your responsibilities. Thank you. Laura Fridgen: Hi. My name is Laura Fridgen, 6291 Blue Jay Circle. I work for Ramsey County in the assessor's office and we have had open book for as long as I've worked there. I've been there for 9 years and it is a very good process. We resolve probably 90% of our appeals before they even go to a further action. I guess a question that I would have, I realize you're all competent people but I wonder about their knowledge of real estate values, sales, that kind of thing. The county people, the assessor's we monitor our values. We establish our values based on sales, and that is how it's calculated. And yes, it does come down to taxes. We assess. We value and then it translates to taxes, but in Ramsey County and we've seen an increase in open book and it works well for the people. They're comfortable. They're comfortable coming to us. I would be more uncomfortable coming to a bunch of people that I didn't feel were trying to work with me. As far as knowing values. And sales. I don't know if anybody's a realtor or an appraiser or anything on this council so, that's just my input. It works well in Ramsey County. Really well. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? One for, one against. Alright. Thank you. Appreciate the comments and opinions. Let's go ahead then, if nobody else does want to speak we'll, without objection we'll close the public hearing and get some thoughts from members of the council or if there are other questions that come up, we can address those too. Thoughts and comments. Councilman Peterson, want to start? Councilman Peterson: I don't know whether I should admit that I'm a realtor or not. I guess that's what I'm struggling with so. Mayor Furlong: Well I've got an admission when it gets down to me. Councilman Peterson: You know I think that if, what we have I don't like and it has nothing to do with being uncomfortable or anything from a people's presenting ideas. They are, when people come before us, it's a challenge to put the assessor's office on the spot and it's awkward because essentially we want to listen to people but until the assessor gets out to their house, there's nothing much we can do. So if this streamlines the process, and it saves dollars. I don't City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 30 think it will save a lot of dollars but it will save some, but if it saves dollars. Streamlines the process and just generally things flow better and people that have done it like it, then I don't see a reason why we wouldn't try it. The key word there is try it. We've got a contract that runs 2 more years? Or a year. And to that end, I'm all for kicking the tires with new opportunities so I say give it a shot. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well….my husband's a realtor. You know I typically am for less government all the time and making the process more easy or friendly for the people who pay taxes, but with this instance I'm going to have to disagree. I think that this is a way for me as a council person to get the pulse of what's going on in our city as far as how they're being taxed and how their home values are being valuated. If I don't sit here and no one comes to talk to me, I don't know what's going on. I don't know how they're feeling. I don't know what's going, I mean I just, I want to know I guess. And if they go to an assessor's office, which they'll probably wind up doing anyway, I won't know what happened. I won't know you know where it all began. The process or anything and I think I'm just taking away their bullets. Yeah, it's uncomfortable to come and talk about lots of things but this is where it should be done I think. And as an elected official, I think they'll have perhaps more of my ear than just an assessor would because I'm accountable to them and to what they're saying and I'm listening to what they're saying and that's why they put me here so I am not in favor of this. I'm in favor of keeping the process the way it is and letting people have a chance to come here and speak their piece. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I think in this instance I agree with what Councilwoman Tjornhom had to say on not shirking responsibility. It's not the fact that it's uncomfortable to sit up here. It's uncomfortable to talk to neighbors and residents about it. I have always wondered in the 4 times I've done it that what our real value is to the process other than getting in the way sometimes. As Mr. Peterson said, we very rarely take an action without review or input or you know we get an opinion back from the assessor's office and say yeah, that sounds good. It seems right. The vast majority of them so, in the spirit of streamlining government process, a phrase that we don't use often enough, where it comes often enough that I'd be willing to give it a shot. Knowing that you know residents I believe would still ask for the help from their council members and elected officials if they desired that and I think, I know me personally would do what I could in that process. There still is a local, I guess I still consider county government as local government so that's there but this is a process where the assessor makes the determinations essentially and you know it's a county function. It's something that we contract with the county's assessor's office and I'm willing to give it a shot for 2 years and see how it works. If that doesn't, if we don't find that it streamlines the process and makes things simpler or easier, we can always go back. And you know if it turns out to be a wrong decision, but I'm willing to give it a shot in the interest of streamlining the process. Making it easier. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. My thoughts since I started out, the reason of hitting this so early, or quickly here after we first brought it up is simply because of the deadline for Thursday. If we are to make a decision, we need to make it this evening. The process, I would concur with City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 31 Councilman Lundquist. In the 4 times I've been through it, and Councilman Peterson as well, it has been awkward. I guess in issues of full disclosure, I'm an appraiser. I happen to be a business appraiser but we deal with commercial properties and business assets and business interests all the time so. With that being said, we have had situations where we have competing appraisals. One from the property owner. One from the assessor's office. We've had a variety of issues. The process has been awkward and it is not just this last year. I think this last year reinforced how awkward it's been the last few years that I've been involved and it's one of the areas that I think we need to improve. I very much want to be responsive and accessible to our residents. I think we do that. I think we do that through our visitor presentations as well as emails and phone calls and there are ways to do that. I guess if we did go forward with this process, I guess a couple things that I would ask of Ms. Johnson as well as Mr. Gerhardt, and one is information. Reporting information. We get a lot of good information in terms of market values and changes and assessed values by asset classes as part of our Board of Review. I would hope and expect that we get that same information as a City Council. At that point and prior to the time when that open book meeting were to take place. Is that I assume still something that we would get. Angie Johnson: I could definitely supply that to you. I put together an analysis of all the cities for our County Board of Equalization and so it would include part of Chanhassen so that would be very accessible too. Mayor Furlong: I know it's always helpful for us as a council, even though it's early in the year and we deal with budgets late in the year and tax levies late in the year, to understand how property values are moving within different asset classes and the…so I think that would be helpful. The other thing if we went forward, I guess I'd be interested in making sure that there was a feedback form from anyone, at least from Chanhassen participating in this process, that perhaps Mr. Gerhardt you and Ms. Johnson can work together to identify and make sure so that we have a contract right now that we've approved with the assessor's office to assess all the properties in the city for the next 2 years, and at the work session, even though we didn't have a full complement of the council, saying if we go forward, tying it to the 2 years would be, would make sense. It'd be a chance to give it a try and see how it works. But I think as part of that, some feedback, whether it's a customer comment form or something like that would be appropriate for everybody. Even if they just called up and asked and such. It may be a little more effort early on but I think it would be something that would give the council that's going to be looking at this perhaps 2 years from now, some comfort as to what, how it's been received. If it isn't being received well, I'm sure we're going to hear about it from some. But I'd like to know from those that we don't hear from. Give them a chance to do it maybe a little bit more informally. I would hope that that would be something that we could incorporate as well. Todd Gerhardt: Definitely Angie and I can get together and draft something and get it to you before the appeal process starts. Angie Johnson: Well one thing that does happen in our office, when the appeals process, or when the valuation notices are mailed, all our appraisers, they run like a phone log. Anybody that calls in gets logged and so we do keep track of that and then as the process goes on, at least City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 32 they know the person has called and a phone number so it doesn't get lost you know in paperwork. Mayor Furlong: Sure. And I guess if, our staff needs to work with your staff to try to follow up for those Chanhassen residents that call. I think that would be helpful to us to try to coordinate that so that we get that feedback. What I'm hearing right now, which was news to me over the last 2 weeks is that there are a lot of people who work with you already that we probably don't even know about. And I'd be interested in their feedback too and how that process goes so we get, for everything. I think it's, the process has been awkward. It has been frustration I think on the parts of some of us on the council. I think it's been a frustration for some of the residents. In fact I know it has been a frustration for the residents. I hear it's been a frustration for the assessor's office and if we can streamline the process, get people fairly resolved. The other thing that gives me some comfort is that even if we kept the process the way it is now, we're not the last step. The last step is the county board, regardless in terms of the appeal process. And that's true whether or not the resident doesn't agree with us or whether or not the assessor's office doesn't agree with us. They can go to the county board so you know I think if we're the cog in the wheel, or if we're part of the inefficiency, I'd be willing to step back and if we can make it more efficient, let's do that. Knowing full well that we're clearly accessible to our residents if this is an issue that's a problem in terms of whether it's assessed values of the process, I know we're going to hear about it. And whether that's true with normal communications, such as email and phone calls or whether it's during visitor presentations at our City Council meetings. I would not be in favor of doing this on a permanent basis at this point until we move forward under the 2 year period, but I think it's, sometimes you've got to try some things new and see if it works and I'd be willing to do that here because I think of our confidence in the assessor's office as well as what I'd like is a much more active role with our city staff. Working with them in terms of getting the feedback and the results. Angie Johnson: Mayor, just a clarification. I hear you've been talking 2 years. If you turn this to open book to the county, it's a minimum of 3 years. Mayor Furlong: Is that by statute? Angie Johnson: That's by statute. That's by statute. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Angie Johnson: So just a point. Mayor Furlong: I guess, the difference between 2 years and 3 years, I don't know that that's, to me that's not a make or break. I think I would not be in favor of a permanent transfer, and if the minimum is 3, then I would go with the minimum, but I'd be interested to know Councilman Peterson or Councilman Lundquist, your thoughts. Or Councilwoman Tjornhom, if you have any other thoughts as well. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just want to put for the record that I think last year there was a lot of frustration from our residents because the meeting was scheduled for only a half hour and there City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 33 was no time. We had people here that wanted to speak and they weren't allowed to speak because we had to go into our 7:00 meeting so I don't know if it was they were frustrated because they had to come and speak to us, or if it was because they weren't allowed to after they cleared their schedule to come. So I just want to make that clear that that was one of the frustrations from last year. Angie Johnson: And that was frustration just that they weren't allotted that whole half hour. It was shortened, but we have. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the half hour wasn't enough either. Angie Johnson: We've been running a half hour for probably the last 5 years I would say, if not longer even that it's been changed to that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I guess from my opinion about the whole thing, if I've got a tax problem, I'd be pretty ticked off too if there were 30 people in the room and I, that were all allowed a half hour. I mean you know, there has to be some fairness in the whole thing too in allowing people to have a voice in the whole process. Angie Johnson: And I agree. And if we would keep it as a local board of appeals, I would definitely suggest that for the upcoming years that it definitely has to be a longer period of time. At least for the City of Chanhassen. It's worked okay in the other cities, but the city of Chanhassen I believe we need, just because of the numbers. Mayor Furlong: I think that's right. The other challenges Mr. Peterson said, is even, the notices say 6:30 City Hall for the public hearing, and I know we did extend it beyond 7:00 and delayed our council meeting but it was, I think that was part of the frustrations for people as well. The other thing is that, some of the people that came here had never contacted the assessor's office first so even if they spoke, we couldn't deal with it because we didn't have enough information. We had to continue the hearing and bring them back in 2 weeks or 3 weeks anyway so that's part of the awkwardness I think that has frustrated me. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But was that part of the miscommunication perhaps you know when the notice was sent out, were they told. I have never seen a notice for appeals. Angie Johnson: I'm sure it's on, it says in bold letters, contact the assessor's office first with our phone number. It's the first thing it says. Yeah. We tried to put it as bold as possible. As large as possible but people still overlook it. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I have a question for Angie. To make this a little bit more efficient for the residents of Chanhassen, you know setting up here for a week, is that efficient for you? In the notice it would say you know contact you to schedule an appointment and then if they can meet here in the council chambers versus going down to Carver County. Will you have enough information here to answer the questions or what is the best process that you would recommend for that? City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 34 Angie Johnson: I think when we checked on it that one time that you have a connection so we can get live access to our files and we just bring in a laptop up here and that'd be sufficient for the information we needed. Todd Gerhardt: So you know, I think that would be a benefit for our residents to come here versus driving all the way down to Chaska. If you decide to go that way. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then maybe that's if this does pass, which I think it will, then maybe that's a good time for them to offer their feedback form then so they're here, right here on the spot and they can leave their comments about what they just experienced and if it was something that they thought was more effective or if it was less effective. Mayor Furlong: Or just overall view of the process. I think that's a good idea. Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But in that form I would like to have it also, have them answer the question you know, would you have rather come and spoke to council or do you favor this? I think that would be a good question in the form for feedback. For the process. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments? Discussion. Do we have a motion in our council packet here? Councilman Peterson: Indirectly there's one that staff is recommending approval of the open book process and it would be changed to a 3 year term providing annual progress reports as amended by the comments made by tonight by various council members and the mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you would move that motion? Councilman Peterson: I would. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any further discussion on that motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the "Open Book Process" for the next 3 years with staff providing annual progress reports on how the new process was received by the public. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion prevails. Thank you Ms. Johnson. Appreciate your help and I think we're going to give a lot more scrutiny to this over the next 3 years so, appreciate all your efforts. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 35 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think Mayor, you and I were at the Westwood Church meeting put on by the sheriff and I think was a good night. Good information and I think people were allowed to express themselves and kind of get out their frustrations and fears and I think our Sheriff and Beth did a wonderful job kind of calming people and reassuring them and teaching them what to do to keep us all safer and I thought well the good thing was, and I still don't do it, is just keep your garage doors closed at night. You know simple things like that can make such a difference. And Neighborhood Watch programs also. You know keeping those alive and really knowing your neighbors and their activity and what's going on so I thought it was a good meeting. It was a healing meeting for those residents that were shook by it and so I want to thank the Sheriff again for, and Westwood Church for hosting it and doing that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate those comments. Well said. I think in addition to that, it was, the meeting was also well attended by residents of Eden Prairie. I understand there were residents from elsewhere within Carver County because of the uniqueness and rarity of the situation, I think it either opened people's eyes or shook their sense of comfort a little bit and I think Sheriff Olson and the Lieutenant from the Eden Prairie Police Department and Beth Hoiseth, our Crime Prevention Specialist as well as Sergeant Gullickson who were there and a former Sergeant, now Lieutenant Jim Olson was there too and provided some good comments as well so I agree with you and would reiterate, it was very effective. It was well run and I think it was very positive for everyone so appreciate everyone's efforts and are grateful to Westwood Community Church as well as the Sheriff's department, Police department, everyone involved, and coordinating that and our staff…so thank them for that. Any other comments? Discussion items. I guess just a quick comment, last Monday evening the City Council met with the Watershed District. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek, did I get that in the right order? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah you did. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And it was a good meeting, so I want to just get it on the council minutes that not only that the meeting occurred but it was a productive meeting. To thank all those involved from the district, our city and the managers from the watershed district and our city staff and others that were involved because I think it will provide the opportunity for us to make some improvements with projects, not only with our relationship with the district but also get some good storm water projects done and improvements to Bluff Creek as well as elsewhere in the city so it was a good meeting. Todd Gerhardt: We've already started dialogue with some of the managers and staffs and in the future I think we'll have both in a face to face meeting and make sure to address the issues raised at that meeting. But again I think, want to thank all the council members that attended that meeting. It definitely sent a message to the managers that you know you care about Bluff Creek and the health of that creek and working together so, I think that sent a strong message to them. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other council presentations? If not, Mr. Gerhardt. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 36 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Well, probably the big news right now is that 312 is open to Dell Road and I think the Mayor cut 5 extra minutes or so to his daily commute to Eden Prairie and so for the public that wants to realize 312, it is open off of Dell Road so take advantage of that. Water treatment plant is moving along on schedule. This past week we got windows and doors in. The base coat for the driveway and cul-de-sac turn around area has been laid, so that's a good sign. Hopefully you know firing it up here towards the end of December, January timeframe is on schedule so that's great news. The east/west collector road, the base coat on that roadway has been laid. A trail is in. They're doing wetland mitigation. If you drive back in that area, Ryland does have 2 models up. That's the single family development on the old Degler Farm, so they're moving ahead there. And wrapping up as we get closer to winter, I think we'll feel it here on Thursday. Other than that I think that's about it from administration. Mayor Furlong: I guess that begs to question, are the plows ready to go? Todd Gerhardt: We are ready to go. Yep, we're out staking some of the trail areas that we plow so if you see lath along the trails, that's so we don't tear up people's sod and the plow trucks are all greased and got sand and salt piled, ready to load them up and just waiting for that first snowfall. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good, any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Councilman Peterson: I didn't know you're a weather forecaster now too. Mayor Furlong: I don't care when it comes. I just know it's… Todd Gerhardt: …I said we're ready for it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else to come before the council this evening? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: City Council work session, we did not complete all of our items. One of the items, discussion of Capital Improvement program will be delayed. We'll have a work session next week, prior to Truth in Taxation. And I know that's been publicly noticed next Monday night, 7:00 here in the council chambers. We'll hold our Truth in Taxation hearing. And the public is very welcome to come. Encouraged to come and this is the discussion of our budget for 2007 and what the resulting tax levy will be for next year so that's next Monday night on the 4th. We will meet in work session prior to that to discuss the capital improvement program budget for 07 and some other items. We will, the City Council will meet in executive session in the Fountain Conference Room to continue discussion on the City Manager's performance review, which is part of our annual duties immediately following this meeting as well. City Council Meeting - November 27, 2006 37 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Kathleen Thomas, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Paul Oehme, City Engineer; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Mike Elftmann 7600 Quattro Drive Robert Crawford 7600 Quattro Drive Scott Larkin 3650 Annapolis Lane No., Plymouth Bill Braunwarth 7600 Quattro Drive Larry Vortherns 7600 Quattro Drive Colin Evenson 900 American Blvd. E., Bloomington Adam McLane 900 American Blvd. E., Bloomington Brian Guthrie 8123 Stone Creek Drive Jerry Cornell 8345 Stone Creek Drive Mike & Darlene Leonard 8129 Stone Creek Drive Christine 8595 Drake Court Bev Schram 8297 Stone Creek Drive Donna Hernandez 8289 Stone Creek Drive Laurie & Marina Tofteland 8325 Stone Creek Drive Homer & Dorothy Sutter 1913 Creek View Court Phil Standafer 8767 Valley View Place Mark Zitzewitz 1930 Bluff Creek Court Chris & Brenda Berg 8269 Stone Creek Drive Sandy Opheim 8305 Stone Creek Drive Thor Smith 2139 Boulder Road Andy Kayati 8715 Valley View Place Al Gomez 8748 Valley View Place Scott Jesse 8198 Stone Creek Drive SOUTH LEG HIGHWAY 101 UPDATE, PAUL OEHME, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER. Paul Oehme gave an update on the progress of the 101 corridor study. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification of future traffic counts and improvements. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 2 PUBLIC HEARING: CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC-REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION TO EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 7600 QUATTRO DRIVE, ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, IOP. APPLICANT, CITIES EDGE ARCHITECTS/CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC., PLANNING CASE 06-36. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Colin Evenson with Cities Edge Architects and Bill Braunwarth, Director of Sales and Marketing for Custom Fab Solutions stated they were present to answer any questions. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Katie Vickerson, whose home backs up to the business, asked to see visuals of what is being proposed, i.e. height and width of the proposed building. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification of conditions 5 regarding roof drainage and 10 regarding screening of rooftop equipment. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for the construction of a 7,002 square foot office warehouse building expansion for Planning Case 06-36 for Custom Fab Solutions as shown in plans dated received October 20, 2006, and revised on October 26, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. All trees and shrubs shown to remain on plans dated 10/20/2006 shall be protected during all construction activities with tree protection fencing. Any trees or shrubs lost due to construction damage will be replaced after the construction has been completed. 2. Foundation plantings for the expansion will be 3 pink spire crabapples and 24 Japanese white spirea. 3. The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City and receive staff approval of the erosion and sediment control plan prior to commencing work on-site. 4. Building Official Conditions: a. The building addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. d. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 5. The roof drainage must be discharged on the north side of the building to the maximum extent practicable to increase the time of concentration to the existing storm sewer system. 6. A building permit will be required for any retaining wall four feet tall or higher. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 3 7. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 10. All rooftop equipment must be screened.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSE HIGH SCHOOL, REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE SITE IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK, ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET. APPLICANT, ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC./ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 06-35. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to explain the difference between an EAW and EIS and clarification of the negative declaration for an EIS. Alyson Fauske presented the staff report on the interim use permit request for grading of the site. Commissioner Keefe asked for further clarification on what is being proposed for erosion control. Commissioner Thomas asked about timing for the stockpile of dirt. Commissioner Larson asked about the location, depth and demarcation of the gas pipeline. Chairman McDonald asked about bonding requirements for erosion control. The applicant, Jay Pomeroy addressed the issues of the EAW, timing, stockpiling of dirt on site, erosion control, and safety measures associated with constructing around the gas pipeline. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Andy Kayati, 8715 Valley View Place expressed concerns that the 7,000 square foot preparation is far greater than what's prepared for a $100 million dollar project, that the regulations don't apply to the school district for cutting of the bluff and filling of wetlands, lighting of the athletic fields, traffic, the 25 foot reduction in the bluff which acts as a natural wind break for the neighborhood, and the aesthetics of the site. Al Gomez, 8748 Valley View Place questioned whether the bluff ordinance applies to this project. Chairman McDonald suggested tabling this item to address the questions raised. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the request for an Interim Use Permit and review of an Environmental Assessment Review Worksheet for Planning Case 06-35, Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc./Independent School District 112, Applicants. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 4 Chairman McDonald noted that the public hearing was suspended to the next Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX, REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, IOP; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUB HOUSE/MUSEUM BUILDING AND 11 STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA); A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL WETLANDS ON SITE; AND A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE STORM WATER POND WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK PRIMARY ZONE ON 38.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD. APPLICANT, BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS, PLANNING CASE 06-34. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked about precedence for granting a variance for the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek primary zone, and asked staff to address the height, length and material of the retaining wall, and hours of operation. Chairman McDonald asked staff to comment on their contention that the harm of this variance is outweighed by the benefit to the wetland and that it will contain surface water runoff for treatment before being emptied into the wetland. The applicant, Bruno Silikowski spoke to the concept of a motorplex, the number of buildings, number of cars, hours of operation, environmental issues, and lighting. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Mark Zitzewitz, 1930 Bluff View Court stressed that this is a project that will fundamentally affect the nature and character of an entire neighborhood. He expressed concerns with safety, aesthetics, natural environment, property values of the neighborhood, and asked that the Planning Commission deny the application. Michael Leonard, 8129 Stone Creek Drive, being one of the first residents in the Creekside development, has watched development occur over the last 10 years and had concerns with flooding in the Bluff Creek watershed. Marina Tofteland, 8325 Stone Creek Drive showed pictures of the views from her home and flooding. She also expressed concerns with their property values decreasing due to this development, and the proximity of the buildings to her house. Jerry Cornell, 8345 Stone Creek Drive expressed concern with runoff and flooding in this area and property values devaluating with this project. Scott Jesse, 8198 Stone Creek Drive stated his predominate concern is the water runoff, noise, future expansion, revegetation and berming. The applicant's hydrologist addressed the runoff and flooding issues. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. After commission discussion and comments the following motions were made. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the Rezoning of the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 5 Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a Variance to locate the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek primary zone, in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans shall be revised to show the correct Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. 2. The applicant shall develop a restoration plan for the upland areas within the primary zone that includes native plants for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before installation. 3. The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 4. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. 6. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the two buildings immediately adjacent to Audubon Road shall require a separate site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 12 buildings (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 6 1. Additional windows or doors must be incorporated in the clubhouse eastern building elevation to comply with the 50 percent transparency requirement. 2. Water Resource Coordinator conditions: a. The plans shall be revised to show how the water routed through Wetland Area B will be conveyed to the proposed stormwater pond. b. The plans shall be revised to show only non-exempt wetlands. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas to be preserved shall be protected by silt fence during grading. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c. The plans shall be revised to show the correct primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. d. A conditional use permit and variance shall be obtained prior to alteration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. e. Drainage and utility easements over the stormwater pond and areas necessary for pond access (including an easement over the main drive aisle through the site from Audubon Road to the pond) shall be dedicated to the City prior to recording the site plan. The parking areas and drive aisles shall be swept each spring to prevent sand from leaving the site. Documentation of sweeping activity shall be submitted to the City annually. f. The plans shall be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details for stormwater infrastructure and erosion and sediment control, including 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301 and 5302A. A detail for the proposed temporary perforated riser pipe shall also be included in the plans. g. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) is needed; a detail shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins shall provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipe shall discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetland and shall be stabilized with riprap. h. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 7 i. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. j. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. k. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. l. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the site and approved by City staff prior to issuing a permit. The SWPPP shall include a provision that requires temporary seeding of stockpiles if left exposed for more than 14 days. m. The plans shall be revised to include energy dissipation on all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation. n. The plans shall be revised to replace hay bale curbside inlet controls with Wimco-type inlet controls. A detail shall be provided. The controls shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. o. All perimeter controls shall follow the City’s specifications. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the City and the SWCD prior to grading. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants. b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen city Ordinance #9-1. c. Yellow curbing and no parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and signs to be installed. d. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 8 f. Submit radius turn dimensions to City engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4. Building Official Conditions: a. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. d. Every building containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected to a public or private sewer (MSPC 4715.310). No building sewer shall be less than 4 inches in diameter (MSPC 4715.2310). Building drain must be by gravity (MSPC 4715.2430). The distance between cleanouts in horizontal piping shall not exceed 50 feet for 3-inch or less in size and not over 100 feet for 4-inch and over in size (MSPC 4715.1010. 5. Forester conditions: a. All existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road shall be preserved and protected with tree preservation fencing during construction. Any City boulevard tree that dies or is removed will be required to be replaced. b. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 82 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 23 overstory trees along the northwest property line buffer yard. d. The slope along the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be seeded with an approved native seed mix. e. Plant selections for landscape requirements shall incorporate native species for buffer yard and parking lot landscaping 6. Engineering Conditions: a. The grading plan must be revised to show proposed pavement grades for the driveway access to the northern office/warehouse. b. The grading plan must show proposed pavement grades. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 9 c. Pavement grades must not exceed 10%. d. The private streets within the development must be constructed to a nine-ton design. e. An additional spot elevation must be shown on the south end of the storage building immediately west of the northern office/warehouse to ensure positive drainage. f. Note the proposed rim and invert elevation of the storm sewer located at the driveway intersection south of bore hole location #3. g. The developer must coordinate with City staff to ensure that pond maintenance and emergency vehicles will be able to access the gated area. h. The width of the drive aisle southeast of the pond must be minimum 26 feet wide in addition to the proposed parallel parking stalls. i. If fire code permits, staff recommends that the private watermain be six-inch diameter for water quality purposes. j. The City’s construction observer shall be present for all sanitary sewer and watermain testing to ensure that the proposed connections to the City facilities are in conformance with engineering standards. k. The developer shall pay for the inspection bills and submit a $5,000.00 security to ensure payment of these bills. 7. The retaining wall shall follow the standards for retaining walls incorporated in the subdivision regulations.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION, SECTION 18-41, FINAL PLAT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 3, 2006 as presented. Planning Commission Summary - November 21, 2006 10 COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Kathleen Thomas, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Paul Oehme, City Engineer; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Mike Elftmann 7600 Quattro Drive Robert Crawford 7600 Quattro Drive Scott Larkin 3650 Annapolis Lane No., Plymouth Bill Braunwarth 7600 Quattro Drive Larry Vortherns 7600 Quattro Drive Colin Evenson 900 American Blvd. E., Bloomington Adam McLane 900 American Blvd. E., Bloomington Brian Guthrie 8123 Stone Creek Drive Jerry Cornell 8345 Stone Creek Drive Mike & Darlene Leonard 8129 Stone Creek Drive Christine 8595 Drake Court Bev Schram 8297 Stone Creek Drive Donna Hernandez 8289 Stone Creek Drive Laurie & Marina Tofteland 8325 Stone Creek Drive Homer & Dorothy Sutter 1913 Creek View Court Phil Standafer 8767 Valley View Place Mark Zitzewitz 1930 Bluff Creek Court Chris & Brenda Berg 8269 Stone Creek Drive Sandy Opheim 8305 Stone Creek Drive Thor Smith 2139 Boulder Road Andy Kayati 8715 Valley View Place Al Gomez 8748 Valley View Place Scott Jesse 8198 Stone Creek Drive SOUTH LEG HIGHWAY 101 UPDATE, PAUL OEHME, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER. Oehme: Thank you Chairman McDonald and Planning Commission members. I'm Paul Oehme. I'm the City Engineer for the City of Chanhassen. Staff though it'd be a good idea to give the commission and update on our progress of the 101 corridor study. This is a joint project between Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 2 Carver County, MnDot and the City of Chanhassen to look for, to look at potential future improvements to the corridor. This is only an update. This is not a public hearing, it's my understanding. We're just here to update the council on where we're at with the project right now and we're not asking for any action to be taken at this time. And just, you know we're still working through the project. There is no funding that's out there right now for any improvements. Long term improvements at this time. With that being said, I put together a little power point presentation for the commission I want just to go through. Again this is just an update of the corridor study that the city staff is working on. We've been working on the project for about 9 months now. The corridor location is basically from Lyman Boulevard all the way down to the Scott County line. It's approximately 3 1/2 miles long. And the purpose of the study is just to identify alternative solutions for potential future improvements and preserve long term safety capacity and mobility along the corridor itself. With the 212 project opening up in 2007, we are anticipating this corridor will take additional traffic up to 212 and we're trying to plan for future improvements there. Again this is just the preliminary stages. This is a phase 1. We're still looking at some more detailed studies down the line. Environmental documentation. We still need to put together plans and specs for construction and again, no time frame has been set on any of those future phases. The issues that we've identified to date are numerous, and if you ever drive out there, you understand most of them I would think. Sharp curves. Not meeting State aid standards. Undulating terrain. We've got wildlife intersections out there. The drawing before you right now is just the area along 101 north of Pioneer Trail. There's a lot of wetlands along the corridor too so any future realignment or widenings would definitely, potentially impact those areas. This drawing is showing some of the issues south of Pioneer Trail down to the Scott County line. Again we've got steep, or some very tight curves. 50 miles per hour curves. We've got potential historical house that's out there that we would definitely want to try to avoid. Blind intersections. About a 13% grade in some areas coming down the bluff. We've got a trail, Hennepin County trail that's out there that we need to address if any future improvements were to take place out here. And of course the Y. Looking at future improvements along that segment of the roadway. Just based upon the current capacity inefficiencies in this area during peak periods. A.m. and p.m. peak periods. There's wetlands that are again out here. The Fish and Wildlife Service property that we've got to be mindful about in the floodplain. We've looked at traffic. Crashes in this area. This drawing kind of represents some of the major areas that we know of traffic, or traffic accidents. Either multi car traffic accidents or single car, cars going off the road. Those type of things so we've looked at all that information now. You know based upon some of the findings that we've found already, the corridor crashes, the severity's about 3 times greater than the average corridor considering the same volume of traffic out here so it is kind of significant. We are still working on the traffic forecasts for this area. I'm working with Carver County on their modeling of the entire county. We're still, we're really close on that. We're hopeful to finish that, wrapped up really quick here. We're trying to keep with the Carver County Access Management Plan of the quarter mile spacing between major access points. Because this roadway potentially will be turned back to the County in the future. And again this is a minor arterial collector roadway designated by MnDot so it is anticipating and designated to take traffic, just not local traffic, more regional traffic. That being said we do know there are some topographic challenges that are out there and the characteristics of the area we're trying to be mindful of that and residential properties out here so. But also plan for future developments in this area. Some of the environmental issues and historical issues that we've identified so far here. Berman Field is there. We want to try to Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 3 preserve and protect that park. It is an asset for the city. Historical Straw Hill Farm that I already touched on south of Pioneer Trail. We've got the Hennepin County Regional Trail that's out there. We need to maintain that function and potentially on a light rail transit corridor. Threatened endangered species, we're looking at any of those issues. Additional wildlife service lands. We need to be mindful and try to avoid those lands if we can. And then other concerns. We're still looking at potential burial mounds that are out here. Seminary Fen is in the area, and trout streams as well we're looking at potential impacts. This drawing, this aerial photo is showing one of the steep curves or radiuses that are out there. It's over by Halla Nursery and it is quite, can be quite dangerous sometimes. The historical Straw Farm that is just north of the bluff. Trying to avoid that property. And just to show you the aerial photograph of what 212 and 101 intersection currently looks like with the Y. Try to improve that. How that intersection functions. To date we have had 2 neighborhood meetings. One on July 17th of this year. At that meeting we invited neighbors and properties in the corridor to come in and we talked about the project in general. Getting them familiar with the schedule and the process and what we're trying to accomplish for this project. We developed, developing partnering, trying to develop potential solutions, both long term and short term improvements. And also identifying certain issues, or those issues that we talked about on the previous slide. Then most recently we had a neighborhood meeting on November 15th which we presented 4 potential realignments of 101 with improvements as well. Those are shown here on this drawing. Basically there's again there's 4 alignments. The blue alignment is fairly close to the current alignment of 101. That alignment we're looking at just trying to improve some of the sight distance issues. Improve some of the access issues. Get it more up to MnDot standards. It's a 35 miles per hour design. We're anticipating you know maybe a 3 to 4 lane roadway along the corridor. Whatever potential future improvements are made. It's just based upon the traffic volumes that were projected in this area in the next 20 years. The green line over the east, as you recall, the east alignment. Basically it's the same alignment as the central alignment except for the south leg south of Pioneer Trail which is basically in the center of the drawing here. The alignment does veer to the east a little bit. It does improve some of the traffic movements through this area. Access is improved a little bit and down south, and then also the improvements down to the corridor, down by the bluff as well is improved with the alignment. Does, it you know cost wise it, it would cut out a couple more properties if that alignment was chosen and also you know impacts to some of the residents, residential properties that are out there. The red alignment to the west basically is, from a traffic standpoint is probably the best alignment. Unfortunately is probably the most costly if we go with that alignment. The alignment would be basically built west of 96th Street right now and hug the Bluff Creek Golf Course on the east side and down the bluff. It does have some challenges getting down the bluff with this alignment. And then also the purple line is the Powers Boulevard alignment which would re-route 101 over to Powers Boulevard and bring it up to the interchange at 212 that direction so significant impact to the golf course. Basically wipes it out and potential impacts to future developments if that area would ever take place. So there's not a clear cut you know alignment that works out here. It's, there's pros and cons with each so we're going through a matrix right now which is, and rating each of the alignments and trying to come up with a criteria for which alignment will ultimately end up evaluating the future and keep the, hopefully pick out an alignment in the future to build if need be. We also looked at improvements to the 101 and 212 interchange. Several improvements that we're evaluating currently. One we have to address is the…impacts in 20 years and also along the corridor too, up the bluff. Whether the no build implications. You're looking at a segregated Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 4 or off setting your intersection as shown on the right here. Basically eliminating two signals that are currently out there and going with the most non-intrusive alignment. Next couple of intersection improvements we're looking at are basically a single point intersection. Basically at the Y currently. That intersection would, the 212 intersection would have to be raised up maybe about 12 or 15 feet to accommodate the grade going up the hill. We're trying to maintain about 8% grade going up the hill right now. Again it's in some areas about 13%. The alignment to the right there is basically following the same alignment in front of Bluff Creek Boulevard. As it is right now, picking up grade as you go up the hill but then T'ing off and going south from that intersection down to current 101 alignment. There's some wetland or wet, Fish and Wildlife right-of-way impact to that and again most of these intersections down here would need additional right-of-way acquisition from private properties. We're also looking at two options for interchanges. The left drawing shows what we call the jug handle. Basically an intersection with 101. It would fly over 212 with two signals. One on 101 and one on 212 for those movements, and then also a familiar folded…intersection that's currently being constructed over at 101 and 212. So that one, the jug handle is, you know it addresses some of the right-of-way issues on 212. More or less being within the 212 corridor and 101 corridor that is right now. So we're currently coordinating with local, state and federal agencies. You know cities, Shakopee, Scott County as such. We're out for comment right now. We hope to have comments back by the middle of December now. We're continuing to meet with the Council, Planning Commission, Carver County Board. Neighborhood meetings. We're still planning to have a couple more of those. Private property owner meetings, those things. Still planning to have one more open house with the public and we're continuing to update our website as information comes in. So future schedule would include again open house. Finalizing the draft of the scoping study. Selecting alternatives for future study. We're trying to pick one corridor out here to basically work off of. The objective here again is to officially map this corridor so property owners, future developers know what, this is where potentially we're having our future 101 improvements will take place. And then also future studies, more environmental review preliminary design, final design. We don't know what environmental reviews we will take yet. It depends upon how big of chunks, how big of chunks for 101 we're going to be doing. Potentially an EAW, EIS, EA. We don't know at this time. And then also trying to secure some funding in the near future for, if we decide to make any improvements out here. And then future turn back of old 212 and 101 basically back to the County. MnDot, from MnDot to the County so that's a quick presentation for 101. If you have any questions… Again, just wanted to update you on where we're at. We're trying to finalize this in the next couple months here so we just wanted to keep everybody informed with what's happened. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: I've got a quick question. Traffic loads on 101 are expected to increase with the build out of the southern part of Chan. If we didn't, or I mean I presume the new alignment would also include widening it to what, 4 lane I suppose. And provide access across the river. More ready access across the river. You know is that going to drive additional traffic into the City? I mean what are the initial traffic thoughts in regards to. Oehme: Yeah the traffic study right now, currently 101 is, it's right around 6,000 trips per day. In 20 years it's right around 17,000 trips per day. And you know again the impetus here is, it's a Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 5 minor arterial collector. It's supposed to move traffic regionally. We're seeing impacts on our local streets. Bluff Creek Boulevard for example takes a lot more traffic than it should right now for our local and that just costs the City more to maintain those type of infrastructures. Those roadways too so we want to try to keep the traffic on regional and arterial collector roadways where it should be. So, and MnDot's, that's MnDot's. Keefe: So their traffic projection, 2020 includes essentially an access across the river. Oehme: Correct. Keefe: Yeah, okay. McDonald: Thanks Paul. We'll wait for further developments on this. PUBLIC HEARING: CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC-REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EXPANSION TO EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 7600 QUATTRO DRIVE, ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, IOP. APPLICANT, CITIES EDGE ARCHITECTS/CUSTOM FAB SOLUTIONS, LLC., PLANNING CASE 06-36. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for staff before he goes off? Nope? Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay. Would you come on up and state your name and tell us what you think we need to know to help us make a decision here tonight. Colin Evenson: My name is Colin Evenson with Cities Edge Architects. We have the owner here also. Bill Braunwarth: I'm Bill Braunwarth. I'm the Director of Sales and Marketing. Colin Evenson: I guess we'll be happy to field any questions. McDonald: I don't believe we have any questions for you. Okay, at this point then I would open this up to public comment. If anyone wishes to come forward and address this particular issue, please come up to the podium and again, state your name and address. Katie Vickerson. I am a resident that backs up to that business, one of them on there, is why I'm here. And I guess I just received this so I would, personally I would like to see some visuals of what this expansion might look like and how this property, whether, is it going up? Is it going out? How is this going to affect the properties that are the residential properties that are on the other side of the tracks as far as visually. These are all questions and concerns and maybe that's, you have all that. I just, I'd like to know more information because this is all I've received and what I've heard here to me is not enough for me. I don't feel comfortable with saying I approve of this without knowing more information at some might our neighborhood. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 6 McDonald: Okay staff, is this something that you're prepared to do or is this something you would want to take up at another time? Generous: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. There is a conservation easement on the back side of this property and there's mature trees. This development will be preserving all those trees in that easement area. The building will be no taller than what it is now and if you look at the topography there, it goes up and then you have the railroad tracks and then it's back down on the other side. The majority of this building won't be seen. If anything this should be an improvement because there's a loading dock area on the existing west side of the building and this will add additional separation if you will from the residential properties to the north. The building is, like I said, the top of the parapet is 20 feet 8 inches so it's well under the 50 feet that our ordinance would permit. We think this expansion to improve the operation of their business and allow them to do more things internally. It complies with all ordinance requirements. Like I said, we're preserving the trees that act as a buffer now so those won't be, those will remain. And the back of this building is actually built into the hill so it's like a retaining wall, and unfortunately our overhead's not working. Undestad: Can you show her the, these…? Normally you can see it up here. Katie Vickerson: No, that's fine. Generous: So this is the existing building and the expansion, the 7,000 square feet to the west. This is the tree line and the railroad tracks. Katie Vickerson: Okay. And so will this, this build up will remain the same height? Generous: Yeah. Katie Vickerson: It will be built into? Generous: Yeah. They'll dig it down and that will act like a retaining wall and it will meet the grade on this side. Katie Vickerson: Okay. And all the trees will be maintained? Generous: Yes. There's no change there and then there's some shrubs that will come out with the building back in here. Katie Vickerson: Okay. And then this will be, I'm assuming that this is a straight brick wall… Generous: If you can see it now, it will maintain the height of it. Katie Vickerson: Okay, thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 7 McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay seeing no one come forward I close the public meeting and I'll bring this back before the commissioners for comment. Let's start. Keefe: Yeah, I've just got a couple questions just on the conditions. Number 5. Roof drainage must be discharged on the north side of the building. It says to the maximum extent practical. What is that? That's kind of non-specific. Generous: Right. And we'd like the majority of the water going back into the grass and then coming around the side of the building. Keefe: Is there a way to be more specific on that or not? Generous: Not without having, actually maybe Alyson can. Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, staff's recommendation with that one was just, without driving the roof design for drainage to the back, to the north there, we just wanted to direct the applicant to push the roof drainage to that north side for the exact reasons that Bob had mentioned. And we can certainly look at some stronger language but we just felt that, given the .7 cfs increase in runoff, that they projected is fairly, it's insignificant as far as the storm sewer design is concerned. So to become any more stringent on that we felt was excessive. Keefe: Okay, because he called it out in here I was wondering whether it was more significant. Fauske: Staff doesn't feel that it's very significant. Keefe: Alright. Okay. And then the other one is number 10. Just all rooftop equipment must be screened. I mean are there. Generous: That's an ordinance requirement. Keefe: Yeah, I mean screened with what? I mean is there a building, sort of direction or code or anything to the screening? I mean the screening I presume, air conditioning equipment or, yeah. Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioner, yes. Our ordinance specifies that it has to be screened from the property line from a, for a person 6 foot tall and so the parapet height we believe will be able to provide all the screening that's necessary. Keefe: Okay. So the parapet height will be tall enough. Alright, good enough. McDonald: Okay. Thomas: I'm okay. Larson: Well I see no problem with this. It seems pretty straight forward so… Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 8 Undestad: No questions. McDonald: I have no comments either so at this point I guess I would be looking for a recommendation. Keefe: Sure, I'll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends the City Council or the Planning Commission, City Council approves the site plan for the construction of a 7,002 square foot office warehouse building expansion for Planning Case 06-36 for Custom Fab Solutions as shown in plans dated received October 20, 2006 and revised on October 26, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 10. McDonald: Okay, do I have second? Larson: Second. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for the construction of a 7,002 square foot office warehouse building expansion for Planning Case 06-36 for Custom Fab Solutions as shown in plans dated received October 20, 2006, and revised on October 26, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. All trees and shrubs shown to remain on plans dated 10/20/2006 shall be protected during all construction activities with tree protection fencing. Any trees or shrubs lost due to construction damage will be replaced after the construction has been completed. 2. Foundation plantings for the expansion will be 3 pink spire crabapples and 24 Japanese white spirea. 3. The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City and receive staff approval of the erosion and sediment control plan prior to commencing work on-site. 4. Building Official Conditions: a. The building addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Detailed occupancy and building area related code requirements cannot be reviewed until further information is provided. d. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 5. The roof drainage must be discharged on the north side of the building to the maximum extent practicable to increase the time of concentration to the existing storm sewer system. 6. A building permit will be required for any retaining wall four feet tall or higher. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 9 7. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 8. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 9. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 10. All rooftop equipment must be screened.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSE HIGH SCHOOL, REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE SITE IN PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD, AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK, ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REVIEW AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW WORKSHEET. APPLICANT, ANDERSON-JOHNSON ASSOCIATES, INC./ INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112, PLANNING CASE 06-35. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Are there any questions concerning this environmental worksheet? Keefe: Yeah, I'm not clear on the difference between the EAW and EIS. EIS is a little bit more involved? Generous: It's a lot more, yeah. They look at the more specific details. They'll go into, well what will happen is this would act as what's called a scoping document. It will point out an issue that needs to be studied further. Let's say that there were some you know ground water contamination or something that would result of it. You would have to look at that further as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Keefe: So negative declaration of the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Generous: It says you don't, basically we don't need an EIS. Keefe: Okay, but do we know that at this point? Generous: That's, based on our review the three issues that have come out are those traffic, storm water management and the wetland impacts, and those were issues that the city customarily addresses and we do a pretty good job on those. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 10 Keefe: Okay. So I mean, is the scenario, you know we do the EAW and a bigger issue comes up. Does it, you know because we've done a negative declaration, I mean is there potential that, while doing the EAW, an environmental issue might come up. You follow where I'm headed? Generous: Right. There is always that potential. That's why as a part of the draft we try to look at all the potential issues and why we send it out to other agencies, because maybe they know something that we don't. Keefe: Oh, right. So that would come, and they were looking at, okay. Generous: And what will happen is if they do come forward with an issue, before it goes to City Council, we would need to address that. Their comments. So maybe they say, I don't know for instance that we need to put a search light on the site. Then we can look at, well this isn't really an appropriate location or whatever but. Keefe: Alright. I've got a couple more. How many trips are we talking about? I mean how many, I mean this is a significant grading operation, looks like. You know what I mean? You're talking, I mean looking at this it's probably a couple of signals that you're going to be adding? Generous: Oh yeah, traffic. Keefe: During construction? Or during the grading operation? Generous: Not that, that's just for the build out of the high school. Keefe: So this is in the next, okay. So this is really for building the building. The high school, right. Fauske: Correct. Keefe: As traffic expectation, not for the grading operation that we're talking about. Fauske: Correct. The traffic projections that you've received there are assuming full attendance at the school and then they also did a background on the anticipated growth within the area as far as development is concerned and they identified areas that ultimately based on those numbers would need signals. And I believe that Mr. Stack did go into detail as far as what signals he anticipated or he projected would be need to be installed soon after the school opens and which ones may be required with future growth. Keefe: So at this point, because we're considering the Interim Use Permit for grading, to what extent do we need to focus on traffic impacts associated with the build out of this school at this point? …we're doing this two stage you know. Generous: Right. As part of the grading plan we don't, it's not an issue. We don't have to look at that. As part of the ultimate build out of the project we have to address, be cognizant of that and be able to address that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 11 Keefe: Right. Generous: And like I, the traffic study says, these are the improvements that you need to put in place to make the roadway operate. Keefe: Right, but we're not really looking at the actual, I mean there wasn't really anything in here around traffic impacts and real you know, you know the signal interchanges. McDonald: If I could just interrupt, okay. What you presented us with is a two fold problem. This question about the EAW does impact the long term as far as building the school. But they're here tonight though to talk about is just construction upon the site which at that point, as I understand it from reading through this, does not impact traffic because you're going to store everything on site. So everything would be contained to the site until they're ready to come back to us with a plan for a school, at which time then the traffic and everything comes into it. Keefe: So we'll consider traffic at the next one. Generous: Right but it's pointed out as part of this document because. McDonald: They presented that to us and we need to make a decision on a recommendation that this either goes forward with the EAW or we recommend an EIS. So from that standpoint. Keefe: And interim use on the grading. McDonald: Right, and the interim use on the grading. The two are separate. Keefe: Alright. So we'll have a chance to look at the traffic at the next. Generous: You'll get the site plan review, yes. Keefe: Yes, right. Okay, alright. Generous: And we'll have, if you, we have the, we didn't put the traffic study in there because it was quite large but we can provide this document. We tried to take the tail end of it. You know the recommendation. What the results were. Keefe: I've just got a couple more questions. Why do they grade now? Why do they want to grade now versus you know in? Generous: Timing. Keefe: Yeah. And what's, what's the timing issue? Before it freezes up? Generous: I don't know if the applicant would be better. To start, because it's a lot of dirt to move. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 12 Keefe: Okay, and just from the time it takes to move… Generous: Yeah, then they're going to do it next. Keefe: Where is the anticipated date of vertical? Anticipated date. I guess you've got to do horizontal first. Generous: So they have to make the site developable first and then they're going to build on it. Keefe: Yeah, okay. Alright. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: I'm alright. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: No. Undestad: No. McDonald: No? Yeah, I have no comments or questions either at this point. Would the applicant please come forward and if there's anything you would like to add to this. Generous: Alyson, were you going to go with…? McDonald: I'm sorry, I forgot about the, you were going to cover the actual, yeah we kind of got lost. Fauske: Good evening Chair McDonald and Planning Commissioners. I apologize that our overhead isn't working. I'll do my best to just do a quick explanation. On a little bit of a color rendering showing what the applicant is proposing to do under this grading interim use permit. The applicant has come forward at this time for this interim use permit for the sake of preparing the building pad essentially. So what this shows, that's their building pad. They have a staging area to the west. This is Lyman Boulevard here and the railroad up here, and I apologize to members of the audience that we're not able to have this on the video. Basically the site constraint lies with this high pressure gas main which is shown in yellow. This is actually the easement. But in conversations with, between the applicant and the pipeline company, looking at the size of the gas main, the pressure to do any kind of grading or any relocation of that pipeline, significant impacts both financially and just with the high pressure gas main…concerns so basically this whole yellow area is basically a no grade zone. I believe their final grading plan, their intent is to show no grading within that corridor, so that really drove the design of their site. So just to look at what they're looking at in the interim, the areas in blue show their temporary sediment basin, and this green area here shows that stockpile. When we first looked at this application and saw the height of the stockpile, we were concerned. There's quite a bit of Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 13 fill going in there, up to I believe 45 feet at the maximum. Driving along Lyman Boulevard, try to put it in a little bit of perspective. Up around the area of the pipeline you have an elevation of about 950. You do go down a bit in elevation but the top of this berm will be at about a 998. So you'll be looking at about a 48 foot height from the road surface that's usually, as far as people usually can get a better feel for what we're looking at here. But looking at the site for alternative stockpile locations, we're really quite stuck. They sited the locations, the building pad on actually fitting this…as best they can and with this pipeline easement, to move it any other, to split the stockpile up if you will, and provide temporary sedimentation basins, it's a very, very tight site. So looking at this, taking a step back and taking a look at what can be accomplished on this site, for this interim use permit, we just look to the applicant and ultimately their contractor to be very, very diligent with their erosion control and best management practices because it's so close to the Bluff Creek so. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions associated with their grading permit application. Keefe: So how do they prevent it from, all that dirt from sliding off? Fauske: Well they do have, very good question. They do have basically on the stockpile, they direct the runoff to the temporary sedimentation basins. We've been working with our Water Resources folks on staff here to see if there's any materials. We're not using conventional silt fence. Those just won't be efficient in these situations. Stabilization is the key to the stockpile and so we'll work with them as far as staging the placement and stockpiling and getting areas stabilized as quickly as possible. Keefe: If they're doing it in winter, I don't know what the timing is. I mean what are you looking to put on top of it to keep it from blowing and… Fauske: Well the applicant will have, they have their erosion and sediment control plan that they can expand on a little bit. There are certainly in Minnesota it's becoming very important to have something like that for winter construction. One of the things that our staff has looked at is, there's a spray compost that you can actually put on in colder temperatures. I don't know that they've really established what the lowest temperature is for that type of application but again that's certainly, the applicant can talk a little bit more about the staging. How much fill they anticipate to put in that stockpile within the winter months and talk to you a little bit more about how, as they progress, how they will do the erosion control. Thomas: I actually do have a quick question for you. How long, I imagine it's going to be…but how long will it stockpile? I mean is it going to be there until the school is obviously graded or I mean how long does it sit? Fauske: I would actually like to refer that question to the applicant so they can talk about their timing. Larson: I have a question regarding the gas line. How far below the ground is that? Fauske: I believe it's 8 to 10. 3? 3 to 4. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 14 Larson: So will it be clearly marked? I was reading this and I'm going, how do they know where it is and how do they know not to put part of the stockpile over it, you know what I mean, where it would accidentally get hit. I'm thinking safety issues here but. Fauske: Right. Typically what happens in a situation like this is, the representative from the gas line company is usually out there whenever you're doing any kind of work over their pipeline. So any kind of cutting, filling, they're usually out there and the applicant or their engineer might be able to expand on this a little more. In the City's experience we've seen them out there when they're crossing the pipeline with heavier equipment. Larson: Well they're going to be crossing it a lot aren't they? Fauske: Correct. Larson: Yeah. So would they build some sort of support over it or? Fauske: The pipeline will work with the applicant as far as ensuring that they have enough material over the top to make sure that they're not putting too much pressure on that soil and that they won't compromise the integrity of the pipeline. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Well you've hit just about all the ones that I've got. The only question I really have is that, you talk about the erosion control. Material containment. We had a small problem over on Bluff Creek with the last development that went in. There was, I don't know if it was a storm or water or what, but are we convinced that we've got enough control here so that we don't have a lot of this washing down into Bluff Creek? What are we going to do to oversee all of that? Fauske: That's a very good question. Between the City, the Watershed District, the MPCA permit that they will be required to have, we're finding more and more contractors are really listening to what erosion control specialists are saying as far as getting your site stabilized. There are very stiff fines associated with any kind of non-compliant issues, particularly in Bluff Creek. Again it's communication for the most part. McDonald: Okay, are there bonds associated with this? I mean I know that we ask for bonds for a lot of other different types of things when you do construction. Because of this, you know and erosion control, do we require a bond up front for that? Fauske: I think we're in a unique situation with working with the School District. Certainly in the past we've always required a letter of credit or form of surety to ensure that. If something goes wrong, but all the measures, mitigation measures will be put in place. We can certainly, and unfortunately I don't know off the top of my head, with the ISD being basically a not for profit, what we can require for security. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 15 McDonald: Okay, the only reason I ask that is that if something goes wrong, we have to clean it up. Bottom line. If we can't get someone else to do it, we are responsible. So I just would like to see something that assures that the City is protected. Undestad: You also do inspections on that from the City side too. Fauske: Absolutely. Undestad: You're on top of it out there. Fauske: Yes. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. I guess if the applicant wants to come forward and, you've heard some of our questions at this point. If you want to make sure that you address those. Jay Pomeroy: Chairman McDonald, Planning Commission members. I appreciate being here tonight. I may jump around a little bit because I was writing down my notes as you asked your questions so I apologize if I go from EAW to interim use. The school as you know is going to be built on the bluff if you will overlooking Bluff Creek and with that in mind they're going to try to keep with that character of a fairly natural landscape and trying to tuck what will be a walkout building into that slope as it looks towards the east. That's the lower part of the building and it will be a walkout to that direction. We are, as a matter of fact, working with MnDot as Bob mentioned, that MnDot is doing a Bluff Creek realignment project next summer. They may take some of their material and place it on the school site. We're kind of working with them and there is a conservation easement that's going to be worked through and negotiated over the next months to allow that conservation easement to fall on the east, or I'm sorry, on the west side of Bluff Creek. On the east side of the school so that as well may be utilized as a joint pathway, trail that serves not only the school but also the community. So with that again the natural landscape is going to be fairly important to tie north to south and along Lyman Boulevard. The question about why now. The school would like to open in the fall of 2009, and so with that we're trying to make a jump, or get a jump on the earth work and as we've talked about tonight, the interim use permit is really to grade the building pad. And to a little bit contradict what Alyson had said, the stockpile was going to be at about 970, or something 92. I can't remember my prefix but a 892? What was it? 98. The top of the pipeline is up at a 972. The road is at a 950 so actually the stockpile will only stick up another 20 feet higher than the pipeline. The building will be at a 950. The building will be fairly close to the line in elevation so that it presents itself well. You don't want to go up or down too much to get to the main door. So with that we'll tie in of course with the gas main that's going to be protected and again tuck that school in. The why now again though is to try and take that 975 elevation, that's the bluff if you will. The high point of the site basically to excavate that soil down about 20 feet to get to our finished floor of the building. That 20 feet of material is being deposited on the north side of the gas main, which will eventually become the baseball field. The softball field. The track complex. And that grading will be accomplished next summer. Those bids will be let, pending your next review in March, we're gearing towards a March 6th Planning Commission meeting next time. For the site plan review, and ultimately to bid that work in the spring so that that stockpile is Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 16 really there for about 6 months and then by the end of fall, we'll hopefully have a site that's basically rough graded throughout. Keefe: Where are you going to take the stockpile to? I mean if that's going to be ballfields, are you going to leave it on the site or just remove it from the site? Jay Pomeroy: No. What we have to do, we have to get through the EAW and again try to establish the building pad. We honestly didn't have time to get through the wetland permitting process and although we're going through the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek process with Bob Obermeyer, in this interim use permit we just don't honestly didn't have the time to get through all of the wetland mitigation and placement efforts. That will happen in this next step. So once that occurs, we'll be able to, not that I want to but to fill wetlands and to basically use the entire site rather than really just the portion that we are. Although it looks like we're affecting a majority of the site, we're moving about 250,000 cubic yards. It seems like a lot but ultimately we're going to move probably about 700,000. Which is fairly consistent with a site like this and a high school setting. The gas main you mentioned. We've been in fairly constant contact with Howard White. He's the local representative from, for the Magellan Pipeline, as well the contact in Omaha I believe it is that kind of signs off on everything. We will only be able to cross the pipeline in one location. Fairly, well very obviously fenced, and designated during this construction period, and the next construction period. As a matter of fact the final build out will really only be able to cross that with pathways or trails or perhaps paving in very limited sections, so we're trying really on the design part of it to really diminish that easement through the use of landscaping and walls and different methods so that it doesn't look like a corridor. It looks like you know, it opens. It closes. It dives. It dips. So again the crossing of that though would be accomplished with basically a soil bridge so as Alyson mentioned, you don't have these point loads pressing down on this 12 inch steel gas main in order to protect it. And again Magellan has to sign off on all that. As part of this process and our final say build out. As I mentioned we're going to meet with Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. I think that meeting has been set for the 6th of December. The bonding, just to go into that a little bit. We are a tax based entity obviously, or at least the school district is. Anderson-Johnson's not. The contractor will be required to provide a 100% performance on labor and materials bond to the school district, so that's one certainly insurance if you will, to make sure that the project gets done but also that they've got some weight on their shoulders to make sure that they don't allow anything to get out of hand. As well the MPCA and our NPDES permit that we have to go through, the school district and the contractor are co-signers of those, of that and so again the inspections that not only the city does, the contractor has to do and the state will do, the MPCA permit is pretty obviously binding. So that will certainly provide some responsibility of the contractor. And I think that's it for now. Maybe to answer your questions, I hope if you have any more. Certainly I have Mike Spack here with traffic engineer to answer questions. Keefe: The mound. The big hill that you're creating, how do you prevent. Jay Pomeroy: The erosion? Keefe: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 17 Jay Pomeroy: Maybe, even to back up. The sequencing for the process, or for the project we'll strip top soil and…with the silt fence again that provides the separation and the limits of construction so that we don't go into the wetlands. And even to satisfy the buffer away from the wetlands. So now we have an established top soil berm. Now in the winter time it's not going to become established with vegetation but the blanket will be fairly permanent. It will be anchored. That will also serve as again the drainage limits where eventually water will start to pond in there. That will start to establish our temporary ponding. Once the top soil berms are in, then we'll start to strip the rest of the top soil and deposit that on the north side of the gas main. As that is being built, again that's being built from the lowest, low end up. That will also have to be stabilized as they build it up to make sure that again, we probably, although Minnesota's getting warmer and warmer every year, we probably won't get too many rainfalls in January or in December but what we're looking for is the spring. You know when spring comes around, to make sure that everything is established, or at least covered with a fairly permanent ground cover, blanket, just anchored straw mulch. Compost. Spray. Whatever it may be that is best going to work. And then as again, they build up that stockpile to establish the building pad. Again that comes up and it's benched so that it comes down benched. It comes down. It's benched. And it's established as they go up. McDonald: Questions? Undestad: Just one. Grading. You know you said you're moving about 700,000 cubic yards. When you're all done, is that site balancing out where it all. Jay Pomeroy: Yeah. Undestad: Really? Jay Pomeroy: You know we, our, this is what we do is schools and you know, you try and get it right on the nuts with the quantities but you know when you're working with earth work, it might be 650. It might be 750. But the intent is certainly to keep it there and they may have to elevate the baseball field 2 feet to get rid of some soil or to lower it 2 feet to take it, but that's the intent. McDonald: Okay, I have one question but I think it's really for staff. And it's probably Alyson. On page 4, down at the bottom we talk about sanitary sewers and it's the second paragraph from the bottom. The last line you say no more than 1 foot of rings is allowed. Condition 25 says no more than 8 inches. Which is it? Fauske: Thank you for that Chairman McDonald. 8 inches is the correct value. And actually speaking with AGA today regarding that fill over the sanitary sewer, they've actually indicated that for this interim use permit application, that they have altered their grading plan to, so that there will not be any fill over that sanitary sewer in the interim use, which we are extremely pleased about. McDonald: Okay, so condition 25 can stay the way it is at this point. Fauske: Yeah, but thank you for bringing that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 18 McDonald: …the correct level. Okay. At this point then I would open this up to public comment. Anyone wishing to speak, please come up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments to the commissioners. Andy Kayati: Good evening commissioner. My name is Andy Kayati and I live at 8715 Valley View Place in Chanhassen. Essentially I'm just east of this location. Looking west off my front door I see what is currently the bluff. I guess I have some concerns. One of my first concerns with respect to this is, I came to this meeting tonight and I find that the 7,000 square foot preparation is far greater than what's prepared for a $100 million dollar project so that concerns me a little bit. I look at that bluff every day when I leave my house and in the conversation that you're having, the alteration that you're making to that bluff is going to eradicate about 25 feet off the top of that bluff. Is that correct? Jay Pomeroy: That's right. Andy Kayati: And in doing so, plus you're going to fill in some wetland areas and things like that where I walk along the path on a regular basis. I have concerns with that because I don't see the specifics to that and that concerns me. I don't know what specific wetlands are going to be affected there in that area. When I moved to Chanhassen 13 years ago I understood there were regulations on bluffs in the city of Chanhassen. It concerns me that those regulations, my understanding was that this bluff fell into that regulation, is being mitigated for the school purposes. I do have some concerns with regards to the athletic fields. Lights. What's going to be involved there. What affect that's going to have on our neighborhood, which is relatively quiet at this particular point in time. Traffic concerns me. Traffic's not getting any better out this way. Concerns about how to curb access to the Bluff Creek Estates neighborhood where we live. You're essentially putting 2,000 students plus staff into that building every day. And that concerns me. That terrain currently acts as a natural wind break for our neighborhood. Winds come out of the west. The wind comes down from an elevation of 950 feet above sea level. Comes up that hill and essentially protects our entire neighborhood. You're taking 25 feet off the top of that. You're putting this edifice on there, with sharp corners and creating wind zones. What affect is that going to have on my property as far as potential wind damage to my siding, to my roofing, and things like that? These are concerns that I have as it relates to this, this project. And finally is the aesthetics. As I said, I look out there currently and I see this rolling corn fields, deer, soy beans… Now I'm going to see a school. That's going to take 25 feet off the top of that bluff. So you know, these are concerns that I have. The gas line concerns me. I've lived there over 13 years. The gas line is less than 200 feet from my house. I knew it was there. Everybody acts like it's a surprise that it's there. I think that the City, it shouldn't be that big of a surprise. We pass it every day. So as I say, these are concerns that I have. These are concerns that I think that the commission should address. Like I say, we're spending a lot of money in this city. It sounds like it's gone and I would like to see the most effective use of this property and the most aesthetically pleasing use of the property and the least intrusive use of the property. And as far as I'm concerned, what I see in use is extremely intrusive right now… Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 19 McDonald: I believe the answer to your questions will come as we get the details of the plan. A lot of what you've asked about is really beyond the scope of what we're going to be looking at today. Andy Kayati: But, excuse me. McDonald: Well again, I'm just trying to point out to you that you will have an opportunity to address all of these issues because we have not been given a detailed plan. We do not know what the school looks like. All we're being asked tonight is to just allow them to go in there and level off a spot to put a school. As they have stated, they will come back before this commission with a detailed plan and at that point we will be addressing all of these issues of traffic. The aesthetics. You know impacts to neighborhoods, so a lot of your issues, while we can't address them tonight because we do not have the information to do so, they will be brought back before this commission. You will have an opportunity again to look at these plans and address that in an open meeting, so. Andy Kayati: Excuse me, that's understood. However, they are asking for the ability to re-grade the land without having specifics of the plan. McDonald: I understand that but it is allowed under our zoning ordinances and that's the only thing that we can look at tonight. Andy Kayati: And I'm allowed to question it so thank you. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward? Al Gomez: I'm Al Gomez. I'm one of Andy's neighbors actually. 8748 Valley View Place. And really mine's more of a question. As we've looked at various projects on that same property and the bluff ordinance had come up previously that prevented the leveling of that property. To Andy's point, it seems like we're that much further along and already talking about grading and it seems like that ordinance is out the window. What makes that different and is the school prepared to build without altering the terrain or is it pending on that terrain being altered? You know it's a shame that we don't have any of the pictures up because we are talking a lot about elevation and stockpiling and you know us laymen are a little confused as to what that really means. You know the 20 feet and a walkout building really is hard to picture without seeing something up and while I understand a lot of the, I think the aesthetics maybe that Andy was referring to is the current natural terrain that we have. Outside of what the, what's going to be there once the school is there. And to say you'll get all that after the grading's done isn't going to help us because by then you will have flatten the land. So the question for me was more around, does our ordinance apply or is it out the window. Is it beyond this stage of negotiation and if so, when did that happen because we weren't aware of that. And I think that will probably help explain. And if we could get copies of some of the plans that you were covering, it might help us better understand. I mean I know you all were struggling to share a couple of pieces but we didn't have the benefit of seeing that. McDonald: Okay. Are there plans on the city's web site with any of this? Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 20 Generous: These are all linked down there. On the city's web site. McDonald: Yeah. Keefe: I think that's a relevant question with regards to the bluff ordinance. The applicability of it here or not applicability. McDonald: Yeah. Are you prepared at this time to address whether or not this is an exception to the bluff ordinance or if it's within the bluff ordinance? Generous: No. I wasn't part of that discussion. I believe there have been discussions that this was man made to make it a bluff long term. McDonald: So it's not a natural. Keefe: Does it meet the definition of a bluff? Generous: Only to the extent that it meets the slope requirements. There's arguments that that slope was created…and when you create a 3 to 1 slope on your property it's not…even though you may have the elevation and the slope. Andy Kayati: If I can ask a question from here. I have a hard time believing that that's man made. For somebody that's farmed the land for as many years as they did, to maximize the use of that property or make it you know, I'm really struggling with that piece. Again, I previously had Mayor Mancino on my property when other buildings were proposed indicating that that was part of the bluff ordinance and directly indicating to me that there, you have no concerns. That's protected land. In whatever gets built will be on top or beyond and not visible to us and that's not the indication I'm getting now. And again, I mean other than hearsay, how do we know that that in fact was man made? And again, I'm the farmer and I don't know what I would build that hill to farm because it's not usable farming land the way it sits. I think it's a pretty big issue and I really, I really implore for all of you to take a look at it because again we do feel, seem to be a lot further down the path than that, and again if the decision's been made, I think you should inform the citizens of Chanhassen. McDonald: Well I'm not sure any decision has been made. I mean you bring up a valid question at this point. We do owe you an answer for, that's part of the thing of having a public meeting. I guess what I would, if staff is not prepared at this point to really look into this because we do need to look at this. Especially if prior city officers have made certain comments, which doesn't necessarily mean that that's the case. You need to understand that. I would entertain a motion to table this while staff comes back and presents this at our next meeting. Keefe: I guess what we need to do is to, you know you're looking at a variance. We need to determine whether it's a bluff or not, right. And then we'd be looking at a variance to be able to grade, is that correct? Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 21 McDonald: If that's the case then it would have to… Then at that point it would have to be a variance. So does anyone want to make a motion to table this and we'll direct staff to address this issue? Jay Pomeroy: May I speak? McDonald: Yes, go ahead. Jay Pomeroy: Certainly the hope is to go to the Planning Commission on December 11th, when the EAW. The EQB comments are all back. Certainly not trying to push in any direction here. I don't know if it's appropriate to have staff, and I think the City Council is certainly a public meeting as well for this issue. Perhaps be addressed at that point. I certainly understand where you're at but I think the school district is really trying to get into the work and not to use that as a crutch but I appreciate it. McDonald: Okay. I do understand that but part of what the Planning Commission is, this is an initial public meeting. In some cases this may be the only public meeting on this particular issue, depending upon how it goes. Do you want to? Keefe: Yeah, I think you know, just in light of we need to be in a position where we properly enforce you know the ordinances and we need to determine whether this is a bluff or not so I would motion to table until we determine that. McDonald: Before I call for a vote on that, I will say that this issue did come up about timing and I do understand it. It's the 11th is our next meeting, or at City Council. There is only one issue on that so we do have room on the calendar to discuss this at this point and what I was assured of was that this would not overly impact what you're currently doing as far as the school because of some of these other comments you're waiting for. That that does appear to be a real drop dead date. Nothing's going to happen before then so we're not impacting anything by tabling this. Generous: Mr. Chairman if I believe that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would be December 5th or 6th. And then we would still theoretically be able to get it to council on December 11th. McDonald: Okay. Then there is a motion before the commissioners at this point to table this until December the 5th or 6th. Keefe: Our next meeting. McDonald: To our next meeting. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the request for an Interim Use Permit and review of an Environmental Assessment Review Worksheet Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 22 for Planning Case 06-35, Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc./Independent School District 112, Applicants. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. McDonald: Okay the motion carries with a vote of 4 to 1. So this particular application will be tabled until our next meeting. In the meantime what staff is given direction to investigate for us is, is this a bluff or not. And if so, will it require a variance in order to do this construction. Okay? And at that point we will suspend the public meeting. It is not closed. We will just suspend it until we are back at our next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AUTOBAHN MOTORPLEX, REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, IOP; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS (UP TO 14) ON ONE PARCEL; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 12 BUILDINGS (ONE CLUB HOUSE/MUSEUM BUILDING AND 11 STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 150,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA); A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL WETLANDS ON SITE; AND A VARIANCE TO LOCATE THE STORM WATER POND WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK PRIMARINA ZONE ON 38.7 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD NORTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD. APPLICANT, BRUNO J. SILIKOWSKI/G.E. OSMONICS, PLANNING CASE 06-34. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Dan? Keefe: Regarding that variance to locate the storm water pond. Is that typical that we do that or atypical? I mean are there other instances where we have done that? In the Bluff Creek priMarina zone? Generous: We did, Mr. Chairman and commissioner. We have permitted it under a variance condition before. Under the Pioneer Pass where we're showing that it didn't, there's no feasible or appropriate alternative. As part of our review of this project, we did have the applicant provide us with looks at alternative storm water ponding. They weren't as, they weren't a preferred. One was on the western edge of the project but then we would be building our storm water pond into the side of the hill, and there's some stability issues that you'd have long term with that. And then the other one was to see if they could bunch it more in it's present location but push it out of the wetland, but to do the storage, they can reduce the size of the pond somewhat by not treating those off site water sources. But there would still be some intrusion into this, so this was the best alternative. It is the logical location for the storm water pond on site. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 23 Keefe: Just to piggy, I mean we're looking at the site plan on 12 buildings. Was it considered to maybe locate the pond, to reduce the number of buildings or anything within, was that one of the options? Generous: Well that was, yeah. You can always reduce it but the developer, and I'll let him speak to that, had this, this is what he needs to make the project go forward. Keefe: Okay, so if it's, if this is the minimum then this is the most logical place for it to. Generous: That was our analysis that this was the most logical place. We believe that the little bit of intrusion that they're proposing, the compromise is we get an enhanced environmental, revegetation plan. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Just ask one question on the site plan, and I'm going to go straight to the retaining wall on this, and all those walls, I mean there's a lot of wall in here and you know, 200 feet at 14 feet high. I mean how are those spec'd out in terms of what the materials are. I mean I know they all have to be engineered right, but I would think that anybody sort of looking at this is, it's fairly significant in terms of, is that something you can speak to? Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, with regards to the retaining walls, I think the applicant can probably give you a little idea of what he's perhaps looking at as far as color, color pallet for the retaining walls. To answer your question regarding the height, what staff intended, what the table provided within the report was just giving the idea of the maximum wall height. For example, a 14 foot high maximum wall would be at one point. We'd certainly be happy to go and take a look at how the length of that maximum height exists but it does taper down to 0. Keefe: So the 500 foot one at 15 feet is more kind of… Fauske: I'd have to take a look at the grading plan. I can certainly clarify that but we just felt that with the types of developments that we're getting in now with a lot of retaining walls, we just felt it was necessary to have the Planning Commission, City Council both have an idea of the length that they would be looking at of a retaining wall. We don't intend to mislead and say it's a 15 foot high wall the entire way. We can certainly talk more about tapers and such. Keefe: Can we talk about the product for this type of wall? I mean you know this one that's facing the site or is it facing outside, you know everybody outside will have to look at it you know within the, you see what I'm saying? Fauske: Right. It depends on where they are on the site. Certainly. Keefe: Well there are two in particular. Along the east of the pond, there's 14 feet and 190 feet long… Fauske: I don't have an answer prepared for you right now. I can certainly be more than happy or perhaps the applicant can further elaborate on that. With regards to materials, I would leave Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 24 that up to the applicant but anything over 4 feet would have to be an engineered wall because of the amount of material that we'd be holding back. Keefe: Okay. McDonald: Kathy. Thomas: Not at this time. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: No. McDonald: Mark? I only have one question for staff and that deals with the retaining pond. Is it your position as you're coming here before us is to tell us that the harm of this variance is outweighed by the benefit to the wetland and that it will contain the surface water runoff for treatment before being emptied into the wetland? Generous: Yeah partially and also the enhanced environmental revegetation that we're getting in there. The species of trees and vegetation that are on the site right now, aren't the best. You know there's a lot of noxious weeds and things and this will improve that. McDonald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Generous: Well as a condition of approval we're requiring, we're recommending that they dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over that area. We wouldn't have that on a straight site plan. McDonald: Okay, so we are getting benefit for the variance? Generous: Right… McDonald: Okay. With that I would ask. Keefe: I've got just one last question. Can you speak to noise from this particular operation, just in terms of noise mitigation or what the intent is, because you know it is slated to be you know an auto related use. I don't fully understand the concept but. Generous: Right, and maybe it'd be better for the applicant because as it was explained to me, it's not a high noise generator. The types of automobiles aren't in those dragsters or the modified… It's Porsches, BMW, you know Mercedes. But the applicant can better, more to the operation. I tried to give him, as part of his application to provide a sense of that. And so he can better explain that. Keefe: And just in terms of understanding, I mean we've got hours of operation here, and I don't know about the public. I mean there's 24 hour access for an owner. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 25 Generous: Yeah, there's no public access really per se. Keefe: But there was reference to hours of operation like 8:00 to 6:00 or something in here. Generous: That's when it would be, they would have their proposal is to include a car wash facility for their members and also I think some assistance with mechanical repairs. I mean those people would be at the site at that time. That they would be able to help a owner with his vehicle. Keefe: Okay, so it's really 24 hour. You know in terms of noise type of ordinance related to this. I mean what if we get into this and that is the, like revving of engines and that, I mean what does the City have in terms of a mechanism to manage that? Generous: Well if it meets the nuisance requirements, then we can cite them. Keefe: Yeah. Generous: But it's not, the use is permitted. A storage facility is a permitted use in the IOP district. We think this is the least intensive industrial use that we can get on the site. Keefe: Yeah, I don't want to jump to conclusions that it's going to be noisy. I'm just. Generous: I think the applicant can better address those. McDonald: Okay, well let's have the applicant come forward and have him address these issues for us. And anything else you feel that we should know that would help me make a decision. Bruno Silikowski: I'll try. Good evening. Well where do you want me to start? Maybe perhaps what this is all about? These are private garages. I mean I'm kind of a car enthusiast. I have a bunch of vehicles that I like to keep. Once I buy them I tend to store them someplace and had a very difficult time finding kind of quality storage. Some place that's safe. Secure and has the kind of amenities I'm looking for. A higher end finish. Most of them that you find are nothing more than metal pole barns. One of the, a lot of security issues that I've heard from other people that do that, you know with those other locations. So what I'm building here is something that I need personally. And then what I found out is there's a whole lot of people like me, enthusiasts. I've been a long time guy in terms of auto enthusiast and I have a lot of cars so what I'd like to do is keep them, but in a place where I know I can look at them. Store them. Polish them when I want to. The kind of cars we're talking about here are people like me who have a collection. We may not touch the car for months. You know it's there. Polish it. It's kept clean and that's it. Hence the museum too because we have, it's a small museum. You know you somehow were able to point to some, can I do something here real quick, just to give everybody maybe the mental image of a piece of picture. You know some of the things I want to share with you here are some of the additional. Some additional drawings that have been done by the artist and the architect and such. So what you saw here originally is actually, this is the more current version. So we're going for a much more high end finish, and as Bob pointed out, these are the materials Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 26 that we're planning on going with. It's a carriage house look. What you see here, what I'm going to point at are small museums inside of the club house. The idea of this is not only that we love collecting things, but we like to be able to talk. Right? We like to share our stories. We like to look at each others cars. That's what this is about. When you talk about hours of operation. Yeah, I'm an enthusiast but I also like to sleep so there's no way I'm going to be working on my car other than probably during the day. You know normal hours. And I am a typical person who is going to be an owner in one of these units. The idea is, instead of having our stuff scattered all around in different storage locations, we consolidate it and we bring like minded people together. The types of people that are coming here are the types that can afford all this stuff. So we tend to, you know there's a sort of natural filtering of what you'll see and frankly those customers are going to dictate that the finish and the look and the cleanliness and the quietness and all that is there. In terms of noise, honestly these are cars that you see on the road every single day. These aren't wild, you know we're not going to be sitting around revving our engines up. That's not what we do. It's a place to store our things and like I said, in a highly safe way. Just to give you an example, inside of our storage units I'm offering as an option is a web cam so if you're out traveling somewhere around the world and you want to take a look at your collection or show somebody, you dial into the web site and you zoom in on your vehicles. It's meant to be that way. And also on security wise, if somebody enters into your unit, it not only screens the video of what's going on inside a unit to an internet site that you can go review later, but it also emails your phone. Emails your computer so you know what's going on. So I'm trying to give you an idea that this is a kind of a higher end finish. It's a light use because guys like me, like I said, I have a car and I've got a number of them. I may not touch them for 6 months. But that's, I need a place to be able to put them. That's what this is about. Keefe: What about the, you talked a little bit about the number of buildings and the critical mass of the facility. Bruno Silikowski: Well I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question. The reason why we have the buildings the way we do is they're. Keefe: Just in terms of number of buildings and the size of the operation. Bruno Silikowski: It's, there are two things. It's a very expensive piece of property. Two, it's a very difficult site, as I think you're probably already aware of. It has a lot of sloping on it and frankly our density is pretty light relative to what we could go for but the, to make it work in the Performa, we worked, as Bob mentioned, a number of iterations of the plan and frankly this is the plan that works. So we kind of need to go this route. Now the, what was I going to mention to you? Oh, the size and the shape of the building are pretty much dictated by, if you think about it, inside the unit will be about 2 car deep. And so what we did is we tried to go, give enough space for people to be able to store their vehicle 2 deep but yet, you know minimize how really big it can be. You know now we end up generating a bunch of buildings versus one large building where people would store it all inside. This way you have your own personal unit. It's locked. You're the only one who has access to it, unless you allow someone else to go into it, and that's what I'm saying. Highly secure and safe. McDonald: Okay. Kathy. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 27 Thomas: No, I think he answered my questions. Bruno Silikowski: Excuse me? Thomas: You answered my questions. Bruno Silikowski: Oh, okay. Larson: Where's the race track going? Bruno Silikowski: Pardon me? Where does the race track go? Larson: Where is the race track going? Bruno Silikowski: Well it's not here. It's in a different part of the state. Actually that's a separate project and I just want to make sure that no one gets confused because there's been a few things written about me in Forbes and things like that. Some of what I'm working on, and there is a separate project that is completely independent of this. So don't be confused. That is not what's going on here. Larson: I was actually being facetious. Bruno Silikowski: You were being facetious. Okay. Well, okay. I guess that's it. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: One question for you. Bruno Silikowski: Oh, sorry. Undestad: The number of units, I mean as you've got all these buildings spread out on there. I know I wrote on here. I apologize. I can't find it right off hand. How many cars can you, once you get everything in here, how many cars can you put in? Bruno Silikowski: Well I mean there's a theoretical and then there's a reality. Generally speaking you'll put a couple cars in your stall. That's what you do, so if you look at it from that standpoint, a couple cars in a 1,000 square foot room, so you're probably talking maybe 300 cars. 400 cars total. Somewhere in that neighborhood. Undestad: Is that theoretically or is that realistic? Bruno Silikowski: Is it? No, I think that's realistic. Yeah. But the theoretical would be, you can squeeze a bunch more in there, but that's not what this is. Undestad: And they're allowed to work on the cars until 8:00 at night, is that? Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 28 Bruno Silikowski: They're going to, David Eide who wrote kind of the law for Minnesota is actually writing our condo association. There's kind a bit of covenant restrictions. We are very sensitive to making noise 24 hours and that kind of, it's just not going to happen. We're not going to allow for it. We, it's a group of people, we're not renters. You know we may tinker with our cars, but we're not people that really rip their engine out and you know, just for fun. McDonald: Well speaking of that, is that the type of things that could be going on or is this more in line of you know a Jay Leno type of a thing where you've just got these cars and yeah, you take care of them. Bruno Silikowski: It's more in line like the Jay Leno idea, but I don't want to mislead you either. It's zoned correctly for having some mechanic do some of the work. The idea, part of the beauty of this facility is there's a lot of cars. They need maintenance, like any other does and it's kind of a hassle as owners of cars like this, of collections, to have to take them someplace. So for the minor things, the mechanic will be coming and doing work on our vehicles. If the car requires surgery, you know the engine, it's going to go to them. It's just not going to. McDonald: But again, everything takes place inside of one of the condos. Bruno Silikowski: They're inside closed buildings. McDonald: Inside a closed building. Bruno Silikowski: Not out in the open. In fact what you'll find is, we really don't, you won't see any cars sitting outside. Most of the time people will come in. They'll pull their car inside their little unit and you won't see them again unless they walk over to the club house. And this is empirical because I've seen it in other locations that people have built things like this. It's just the way it works out. It's very lightly traveled. In other words, there's not a lot of people coming in and out at any one period of time. And it's quiet. McDonald: And when you get down to ownership, is this, do you rent a stall or do you actually own it as part of a condo? Bruno Silikowski: You own it. McDonald: Okay. Bruno Silikowski: Yep. McDonald: So the people with the cars there will actually be the owners of that particular piece of property? Bruno Silikowski: That's right. Building. Keefe: So have you written your condo docs to limit noise? I'm just kind of curious. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 29 Bruno Silikowski: Yeah, I mean we certainly wouldn't want them storing any kind of hazardous chemicals, that kind of thing, you know so when you go through it, it's the logical, common sense stuff. We don't want people storing. I mean it'd be nutty to spend so much money to put the furniture in there but we want to make sure that doesn't happen. So there are certain things we're going to say you just can't store here, period. Keefe: In terms of operations and noise, are you limiting that? Bruno Silikowski: Yeah. I mean we are. That's the whole point of saying we have certain hours of operation, and maybe to address that a little bit more clearly. We will have a concierge desk inside the club house. When you arrange for, when the mechanic is coming in to do the minor maintenance on your vehicle, you know it still takes coordination. And so the way it would work is that a owner would type in on the internet, or the web site, kind of the request of what they need done. The concierge basically handles all that detail and the schedule to work and allows it to happen. They'd be the one to make sure that if the mechanic comes in to somebody's stall, even if they're not there, they'd be the one to make sure that they can get into their stall safely. You know they're getting the right one. That kind of thing, so when we meant hours of operation, you're not going to have mechanics coming in to, after hours. It's just not part of the plan. We're not having a restaurant. We don't want a liquor license. That's just not what this is about. Undestad: Can I ask a quick question? How much do you sell these, a unit for? Bruno Silikowski: Well, I'd be happy to follow up with you after the meeting to tell you. Yeah you know what you find is that everybody has a different need. Part of it, some people just need one space to put one car. Some people have a whole collection of things and maybe want multiple units, but have a contiguous space and so it just depends on what the people's needs are. Undestad: I'm just trying to get an idea of how many people, if you sell them all out and you say you get 200 to 300 cars in there, how many people are going to be coming in and out of there. Bruno Silikowski: I think I could estimate it. I'm thinking somewhere between 120 to maybe 150 people. Owners in this. That's about it. I don't see it going beyond that. In fact it may even stand out at 100. There's a number of people who have significant car collections and you know they're looking for 5,000 square feet. And 5,000, you know that doesn't take long to fill up the space. McDonald: Okay. Bruno Silikowski: You know I would like to stress, something Bob had said. This is really a light use and a clean use. We look at the whole issue of environmental protection is a big deal and this particular plan allows for water that's not treated today, coming off the railroad tracks going right into the wetlands and into Bluff Creek. We would be able to treat it with this particular set up, this plan and we'd be happy to do that. The revegetation is a great idea. We're very supportive of that. And we want to be a good neighbor. You guys didn't bring up lights. I Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 30 can tell you that's something else we're very sensitive to. In the evening hours the lights are off. It's going to be motion sensor driven. So if somebody comes in, obviously you need to see but it's meant to be very unobtrusive and to be a good neighbor. And to have a high end finish. I would think that this type of finish would look better than an industrial building, but that's my opinion. McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Bruno Silikowski: Okay. McDonald: Okay, with that, this is a public meeting. I will now ask anyone in the audience that wishes to come forward and make comment, to do so. And again I would remind you of, come to the podium. State your name and address and address the commission. So who wants to be first? Mark Zitzewitz: Commissioners, my name is Mark Zitzewitz. I live at 1930 Bluff View Court which is in the Creekside neighborhood adjacent, or opposite the wetland from this project and apparently soon to be in the shadow in a very large pile of dirt. I come here, I'll try and be brief. There's obviously a number of people who want to speak on this subject but I come here to really stress that this is a project that will fundamentally affect the nature and character of an entire neighborhood. The creek and wetland area that is adjacent to this neighborhood is the center piece of this neighborhood. It's what drew all of these homeowners to this area. And to come with a project that clearly impinges upon the Bluff Creek corridor is of great concern to all of us. There are concerns over safety. There are concerns over aesthetics. With all due respect to the high end finish, what we're being asked to look at now, instead of wetlands and nature are dozens of garage doors and retaining walls. There are questions regarding, I think legitimately so, the affect on the nature environment here. This is an area that is protected by ordinance, and deservedly so. To impinge upon that because it is the most economically feasible alternative to the property owner isn't necessarily what the ordinance is designed to protect. And finally, along the same vein, there are legitimate concerns over the effect on property values of the neighborhood. These are properties that have, that owners paid a premium for, for the view. There's no question that this affects that because there's a request for a conditional use permit. That is a legitimate concern that has to be addressed. And I don't believe has been here. With all that said, I think there's a consensus, at least among the neighbors that I've talked to, that these affects can be mitigated by reasonable conditions on the property. I think the commissioners raise legitimate questions about uses here. We hear promises that, well you know these are folks who want to sleep so they're not going to be there late. That doesn't mean they can't be. There are promises that while this is, this is going to be relatively light maintenance on the vehicles, but it doesn't have to be. There are promises about lighting, but nonetheless at 3:00 in the morning, any of a 100 and some people can come and go as they please. I think there are legitimate questions about safety. About inviting 100, as many as 150 transient persons into this neighborhood. I think there are legitimate questions about the safety of property, given that this is a wetland that has flooded out twice in the last year. I think a number of these things will be reiterated by a number of people here but I think these are legitimate questions that have not been adequately answered at this point and I would ask that the commission at this point anyways deny the application. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 31 McDonald: Thank you. Next. Michael Leonard: Good evening. My name is Michael Leonard. I live at 8129 Stone Creek Drive. In the Creekside neighborhood. I have the distinction of being the first person actually to have a house constructed in the Creekside neighborhood so I've been there, it will be 10 years in 1997. Although the first resident, John and Lori Day who actually moved in a month ahead of us, there were 5 model homes there. So I've seen this area kind of develop long before there was any development. Long before there was Coulter Boulevard. Long before there was Bluff Creek Elementary. Not long after Pillsbury was built. Pillsbury was McGlynn first. Who knows. Anyway, my major concern for me tonight, since I don't live as, this area isn't as obtrusive to my view. We look out and basically look at General Mills and we were here a few months ago, or a couple years ago when they had their, their building added onto and certain things or certain concerns that we had that were addressed by the Planning Commission, addressed by the City Council later on, I think should take some precedence here as far as mitigating the effects of developing this property. As well as concerns that General Mills took to heart and basically mitigate a lot of issues we have as far as noise, appearance to their building. I think that should have some concern. The other issue is, and I know other people are going to address this. I have, I pulled out a map here. This is from our lovely Chamber of Commerce and basically it shows, I don't know if I can get this underneath here and if you're going to be able to see this, but where our development is right along in here, we've got, we have basically where 3 legs of the Bluff Creek watershed all meet in our back yard. They meet from this area north of the Chanhassen Nature Preserve where there is a wetland as one head of Bluff Creek. They also meet up in here on the south end of Walnut Acres, and I'll get back to that in a minute. That's another leg of Bluff Creek. And then also up here on the other side, just straight north of Highway 5. Part of the issue that we have seen, and I've lived there for 10 years and I've seen it rain and I've seen it rain, and the last 2 times it rained more than 4 inches we had monumental flooding. Now according to some people development upstream and the runoff that takes place from those development areas supposedly has been mitigated. I would beg to differ. I think that, and one of the reasons I beg to differ is because I specifically know people within the south end, on the Bent Bow area and the Moccasin Trail area just north of this one leg of the watershed. Of that pond or that swamp you see there, and one of the individuals voiced to me, because she's an acquaintance of mine, that they want to do something to actually retain water up there. And I said well why do they want to retain water up there? They want to turn it into a big pond or lake. They don't want the water going downstream. And I'm wondering what the issue was there. I was unable to contact her tonight because it just came to me that I remembered that, that there was some issue going on there about having to keep the water up in that area. I would beg to differ that all the water comes from upstream, even though some people think that altering the amount of surface and the amount of runoff in that area doesn't affect us. You will see some pictures later by other people that it affected us greatly. In the 10 years I have lived in that neighborhood we have 6, 7 inch rainfalls in less than a 24 hour period have not seen the amount of runoff and the amount of flooding that we saw this past year. And that's pretty much all I have. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 32 Marina Tofteland: Good evening. McDonald: Good evening. Marina Tofteland: Marina Tofteland. I live at 8325 Stone Creek Drive. It's Lot 6, Block 2, if you have a site map at all as a reference. These are some pictures. I'm sorry we weren't able to get them. Maybe you want to just have me bring them up to you so you can see them more closely. We weren't able to get them scanned and then give them to you by video presentation but this, these pictures here are looking out my kitchen window going to the northeast, so you can see the amount of flooding there. And this is between my property and my next door neighbor, Jerry Cornell at 8247 Jerry? Jerry Cornell: 8345. Marina Tofteland: 8345. This is our property line and it extends out into the corridor. This tree right here is probably within about 300 feet of the last building on this, on this building right here. So you know as far as looking at a potential condo owner, I would be concerned about my 75, $85,000 vehicle sitting you know really in a flood plain. The other thing I wanted to, so those pictures I hope are as helpful and when you're visualizing some of that, why the neighbors are concerned about flooding. And having to get water out of your basement, and this is right at the edge of my sod line. I mean right at the edge. Just about covered my fire pit, and there were neighbors that were you know pumping water out of their basement. My sump pump runs year round regardless of what's in the back, and when that flooding was happening, I could count 8 seconds until my pump would turn back on. I mean it was constant, 24 hours a day. So that is really a significant concern to us. When we initially purchased our lot 8 years ago, we called the City of Chanhassen and spoke to the Planning Commissioner at that time. He told us that this area outside of our window was zoned agricultural. That it did have the IOP, but it was adjacent to the railroad track and that it would very likely not be developed because it was such a small parcel. The wetland, he told me was protected and so of course you know then you go ahead with your purchase agreement and a significant investment of your home. A lot of people in our neighborhood, that is their single largest asset and so we'd like you to take that into consideration. We've all you know purchased that property with the idea that that investment is kind of where you, don't have all your eggs in one basket but certainly that's a significant part of your investment. John Day who was kind of helping us spearhead our neighborhood, we have had several neighborhood meetings and exchanging emails back and forth and John Day wasn't able to be here this evening. We did have an appraiser come and he gave his information to John and due to some kind of a computer glitch, that was supposed to be forwarded to me. I did not get it, so I don't have written proof that it will affect my property value, and several of our neighbors, or my neighbors, but we are relatively confident that that is the case. We aren't really opposing the project as a whole, but certainly we would like some modification. In the landscaping plan the staff recommended on the northwest property line of 23 overstory trees, and the developer states he'll put in only 14 of those overstory trees. Mr. Generous referred to some of the trees out in the wetland as being you know not as high quality. Noxious weeds and that type of thing. I feel a cottonwood tree is a valuable tree. I know it's not a hardwood but it certainly is pleasant to look at and also I think we need to remember the impact of an existing wildlife and that additional berming and matured evergreens, tall shrubs and grasses will Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 33 certainly provide nesting habitat, food and protective covering so. Let's see, there's one other point I wanted to make. We did invite…I invited through email by Bob, I invited all of you to come to my home. Look out my kitchen window and see that 720 feet from my deck is the end of this first building, or the last building I guess, and I didn't hear from any of you. So I just you know want to be taken, I want my point of view to be taken into consideration and for what I spent on the maintenance and the investment in my home, what it does to my property value and the aesthetics of looking out my window. We spend a lot of time and effort in maintaining our, the look of our home and I would like that to be taken into consideration. And I understand that it's a high end developer. It's great that you know it's a lot of people with a lot of money that are going to buy that and it's really a nice looking building. We're not opposing that per se but it would be less intrusive and more aesthetically pleasing to the eye with some modification. And certainly he could consider charging more per square foot and less building and still come out with the same financial gains. So, thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Marina Tofteland: If you'd like to see these closer up. McDonald: Yes, if you could pass them up here. Marina Tofteland: This picture right here is, I took on Wednesday afternoon and the X on the picture is where the last building would be sitting. I feel like a 4H project. My son tells me I'm really good. Mr. Generous said he did come to my house. You didn't call me. But thanks a lot for coming. Oh you came to see John. Well thank you for coming. McDonald: I should state for the record that it is the policy that, you know the Planning Commissioners will not go to individual's homes unless we go as a group. As individuals we will travel to sites. I did come to your site over the weekend. I walked the path down below your house. I walked in front of the houses. Each commissioner will do that but as policy we will not go to individual's homes because that again taints our process so that is why no one did contact you, and I did try to contact you on Friday night just to inform you of the policy but you weren't home. So it was not, it is not a slight on our part. It is just, it is the policy of this commission. Marina Tofteland: That is good. McDonald: Okay, next. Jerry Cornell: Hi. I'm Jerry Cornell. I'm 8345 Stone Creek Drive. The pictures are being passed around, did you take those Marina? Marina Tofteland: (Yes). Jerry Cornell: Oh. The fence you saw was my fence. It's a 6 foot fence. It was 5 feet under water. You could have launched a boat to the back yard. So my concern is the water and the Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 34 runoff and I want to make sure that that's addressed. And it's getting worst. You asked about this… I did get a copy of that letter… McDonald: Again sir, I would remind you. Please address your comments to the commission. We are limited on time. Jerry Cornell: I'm sorry because I thought everybody had copies. I was just sent this by this John Day. It's a copy from an appraiser that says that our property values will devaluate with this kind of a project. So, with that I can leave that. If you'll give that to Bob. That's all I had. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next. Scott Jesse: My name is Scott Jesse. I live at 8198 Stone Creek Drive. I think a lot of my points have been addressed already so I'm just trying to cross those off and not be duplicative here but we're concerned about predominantly the water runoff. We've lived through this I think over the last few years. Predominantly in the last year. This is of grave concern because I personally as a property owner in this area have spent a few thousand dollars trying to redirect the water away from my house and my basement so that I don't have flooding anymore, and I am on a higher ground than some of my neighbors who are more impacted. It's more building in this area will cause, it's cause for greater concern because we continue to have these water issues. That's why you're hearing that comment come up over and over again. So that's of paramount importance to us. We're also concerned about the noise. I'm appreciative of the fact that this is considered light use. I think the building aesthetics are fine. I think that we're concerned about the lights. I think those were addressed but I want to make sure that there's some sort of documentation that we all come to an agreement that we understand if we're going to be good neighbors, as was posed by the applicant, that we need to make sure that those are addressed positively and it's not a promise that's made in a forum but is actually substantiated and documented so that we know there's a barrier in the future. Additionally we're concerned about the future. If there's going to be expansion of the area. If there's going to be other use of the property beyond the 14. Will there be application for additional use later on down the line? Do they want to expand and use other portions of the property? We want to make sure that that is addressed as well. We are concerned about the revegetation and the berming so if those, all those concerns can be met or addressed, then I think that we feel a little bit more comfortable about what is being proposed here. McDonald: Okay, thank you sir. Scott Jesse: Thank you. McDonald: Next. Does anyone else wish to get up and make comment before the commission? Bruno Silikowski: If it's okay if I can address a few of the questions that have been brought up. The one thing, I heard the whole thing here. I heard a couple things here. Probably the biggest one I'd like to address right away is the issue of the water and flooding. I do have my environmental engineer as well as our main engineer who did the site planning and if you guys Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 35 would come up and tell them what you, what we've all talked about for a long time, it would be helpful to hear from an expert. Hydrologist: …I'm not actually an environmental engineer. I'm a soil scientist and hydrologist but I'm from…Environmental Services Company. I did the wetland delineation on the site. I also took care of the Incidental Wetland Exemption for that created wetland area and the two drainageways. And just hearing about your water concerns today, I think I've kind of got an idea of what's happening here. Right at…maybe zoom in a little bit. Basically Bluff Creek along the property boundary is a straighten ditch. This is an extensive peat land wetland that in the past was even more extensively ditched. There's, Bluff Creek itself still remains but there's also remnants of older ditches in here and this wetland actually never showed up on the NWI, the National Wetland Inventory because it's been…in the past that it was never picked up by their inventory. So it's being used for hay production in the past. Now that it's been left alone and the ditches have filled in, it's gotten back to it's wetter state. But I think when you have that higher infill that you're getting, you're getting a flush into the creek. You know your watershed's coming down. You hit this straight ditch that used to meander and control flow and it's just a straight row of shoot right here. It gets to this narrow intersection where it's got to go under a bridge and it also has quite a bit of drainage coming out this little knot here which is storm water and runoff from all of this area over here coming down this little ditch here. So I can see that you're probably getting a lot of water on your side, but this wetland over here is about 30 acres of extensive peat land and the bounce, when I did the environmental work on this site, I don't see that kind of bounce that you guys are seeing on your side. Because you're kind of confined over on your hill slope here, whereas this is just a very large wetland complex. And I think Bob, the engineer… Bob: Well the buildings are 12 feet above the edge of the wetland that's right here and of course our ponding and our rate control and everything will be required to meet the city standards and also the watershed standards so we can't increase any of the rate from our site. And the site is, or the site, we're only about 40% hard surface coverage and it could be up to 70% so it's quite a bit less than what is allowed by ordinance. Keefe: Let me ask a question. While the development of this site, including those 14 buildings on that site, will it increase the runoff off that site or will it actually decrease it? So the amount going into Bluff Creek, you know there's a certain amount that's going in today. You're going to expand this pond. Are you actually dumping more water into Bluff Creek? Bob: We actually had a lower rate than what's going off right now. Keefe: Okay. So the answer is that it will actually decrease, based upon the engineering that you're going to go on the site. The water going into Bluff Creek. Now that isn't going to solve the problems on the neighborhood's side of the creek necessarily, except it may decrease the amount of water going in. Is that a fair? Bob: It's not going to be a substantial decrease. I mean you're not going to, it's not going to be something you're going to see. You've got just as much area there so it's going to be going there. I mean there's something blocking that downstream that doesn't allow the water to progress Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 36 downstream from that site. It's backing up now. Either that or you're getting more water from up north, like they said, than they were in the past because they said they didn't have problems before. It's just happened recently. We've had a lot of storms over the last 5 or 6 years off this. If there was flooding this summer, we didn't have that much rain this summer so, something's. Hydrologist: As you see, it was at Bluff Creek…watershed up here. If you look at Bluff Creek above the neighbors, this is the neighborhood. If you look at Bluff Creek above that, it meanders and moves and that accounts for a lot of storage in the river and that's why some is ditched because they just want to get that water out of there, and this is an old ditch part of the creek and it just shoots right there and then it starts to meander again down here and it's just going to slow up. And they're on a hill. The topography right there you know, on their side, the west side is probably going up right away. On this site you have this extensive flat area and… Keefe: So I mean. Hydrologist: You actually have a lot of storage in that wetland on the site. Keefe: So, but you're not taking much of that wetland out, are you? Hydrologist: We're not even touching the wetland at all. Keefe: Yeah right so, so the runoff off of this site, and I mean, I'm trying to paraphrase what I'm hearing from some of the neighbors is, is the, will this project by placing these 14 buildings and where the site is, will it add to the water problems in a heavy rain event? Hydrologist: No. Keefe: By virtue of that. So the answer is. Hydrologist: The pond is constructed to support those 100 year. Bruno Silikowski: And if anything, as…it's a slower rate coming out of the pond so we won't add that to the problem. If anything it will help...At least we know it's not causing. McDonald: Well, if I can interrupt for a second. Just a second. Just a second. Excuse me. Okay, we're getting way off track here. It's not our intent to solve the water problem. The City would love to do that but there is another venue for doing that. And this project has nothing to do with solving water that comes from up north. That is a different issue entirely. We have had the question answered as to what impact they would have. We're going to leave it at that. At this point, unless someone else within the audience wishes to come forward, I'm going to close the public meeting. Bruno Silikowski: Would it serve, I'll address just a few more points and I'll be done. McDonald: You do so at your own risk. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 37 Bruno Silikowski: Okay, thank you. I just heard a couple other little things. Maybe, okay. Maybe I don't need to, okay. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Okay, at that point I will close the public meeting and we'll bring it back up for the commission for discussion. Keefe: Yeah, I mean from my perspective I like the concept. I think the buildings I think he's putting in a fair amount of architectural enhancement to the buildings, which could be a lot less architecturally relevant. So I like what he's doing there. One of my concerns is whether there's enough landscaping or what the view would look like on that northwest side and I guess what I definitely want to see, and I think they need to meet the minimums anyway, right? The required amount of understory trees so I think one of the questions that came up was whether you know the recommend, or there's a required amount. Yes, indeed the applicant needs to meet the required planting as outlined in the report, which I think will help. I also have a concern just around the appearance of the retaining walls to make sure that they're aesthetically pleasing and not just made out of, what do you call them? Keystone, thank you. Yeah, I would like a higher level of retaining wall material used on those. McDonald: Didn't we just pass an ordinance about retaining walls and materials? Generous: As part of the subdivision. McDonald: Okay. Sorry. Thomas: Ah, no. I'm pretty much in agreeance with Commissioner Keefe that…most of the concepts are industrial. I understand the concern of the neighborhood and the aspect that you've been looking at a property that hasn't had that on it but, what it's zoned for so I'm… McDonald: Okay, Debbie. Larson: Okay, I've got a couple things. First of all, pretty much everything they said with also I want to address the fact that the view. Again the property that is going in is actually very aesthetic. The fact that there's going to be transient people, I fully disagree. The people that are going to be having the kind of vehicles that it sounds like, if they can even afford to own this property, aren't going to be transients. They're going to be professionals I guess would be the best way to describe it, or I don't know. I just thought that was odd. The view from the other people from the other side. Again, anything else could go there. Another industrial building. I think what they're planning on putting in here is very nice as far as what it would look like. As far as your view. I mean would you rather have a blank building or would you rather have something that looks nice, and I think this looks nice so I'm inclined to go with this. I like the fact that they want to put a place for people to have cars like this if they don't really plan on having engines running at night or people working on their cars may be something that'd be put in place to prevent you know running of engines and that sort of thing at night time and I didn't see that in here so maybe that's something we could add. The trees, I think would need to be brought up to standards. I'd like to see more, you know, at least what the City's minimums are so with that I guess, I'm inclined to go with it. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 38 McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: Yeah, I guess I have you know again what they've got going on. I like the idea of the concept and stuff I guess. Part of what I'm struggling with is the potential noise. Again we don't, I mean they're not supposed to be working on their cars but yet they can come in here any time, 24 hours a day. These people that live straight across, cars are starting up you know at any given time, coming and going. They live right across a open area out there. I do like the idea, but again I think if there were some way to maybe, if it was able to push back or some additional landscaping or screening to try to cut down the view and the noise from that area. I understand putting two buildings on the end are a deal breaker out there and it's something to think about. McDonald: Okay. I guess the only comments I've got. After hearing the concerns tonight about the water, and again as I said I was out at the site. The problem is that drainage ditch. You've got a culvert down there where everything comes in and that was one of the first things that I noticed also was the fact, what happens when it really rains? That's got to be stopped up and when that happens I can understand flooding. And that's why I said, that is a different issue and that is something that should be brought to the City because as part of our water management, it is one of the things that we do look at, but has nothing to do with this site. It is not a requirement of this applicant to try to fix the problem that he had nothing to do with. As far as the lights, again I was out there towards dusk. What do you do about General Mills? The lights that they have out there are a lot more intensive than what he intends to put at this particular site. I look at your concern about noise. This is no different than you working in your garage. I would expect that these individuals, and again they're not transients. These are high end professionals. These cars are not $70,000 cars. They're $100,000 to $125,000. Some of them I would not even be surprised were over $250,000. This is not the type of people, these are not the hot rodders that go down to Porky's on, in St. Paul and drive around with muscle cars. But I would expect that they would be good neighbors. One of the things that the applicant did bring up is that they are looking at adopting a condo ordinance in compliance with I guess typically what the State has got. That will have a nuisance requirements within that. And again, what I would encourage, if people get out there and start revving their engines, call the police. The nuisance laws will take care of that and if it continues, there will be serious problems upon that particular individual, and I'm sure there will be problems upon the condo itself so I think that you have protections there to protect you as far as those things. And again for the developer, if this becomes a nuisance site, I think that you will suffer financially and I'm sure you are aware of that. So I will depend upon you and the condo association to make sure those things don't happen, but again if the condo cannot self police itself, there are ordinances in place to make sure that they are policed. As far as some of the other concerns I heard people bring up about the trees and everything. At this point they do meet the minimum requirements and I'm afraid that's all the City can really enforce upon them. Now there are a number of stands of cottonwoods out there, and there were a number of trees that aren't even affected by any of this. None of those are going away. As far as the site itself, I guess it does have a history and you know as I tell everybody that comes through here, what would you rather see there? At some point it will be developed and the ordinances allow for something a lot more extensive than what's going in there. The retaining walls, those things will be governed by the City, and again what we will look at there is to make sure that they do meet the ordinances. I guess I was thinking that our retaining wall ordinance would Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 39 cover that because we did address Keystone but if that only applies to subdivisions then I don't have much leeway there as what I would like because we did. Keefe: We can pull that in. McDonald: Yeah, we did look rather extensively at retaining walls and looked at again from an architectural standpoint what those would look like. I know we spent a lot of time going through that. That's why I thought that that would apply. Other than that, I guess all I can tell you is that the applicant does meet the zoning requirements and you know based upon that, I guess I would support this. I would say that I think that there is enough protection built in into all this that if they do not meet your expectations, you do have other recourse. So with that I would ask that, I'm open for a motion and a recommendation. Larson: Do I have to do each one individually or? McDonald: Well, you have to do A, B, C and D. You don't have to read each one of those. Larson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park, IOP. Oh, do I have to read them all? McDonald: No. That's A. Larson: And that's A. Okay, and B. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for development within Bluff Creek corridor with a variance to locate the storm water pond within Bluff Creek Primary Zone in conformance with the grading plans prepared by the Sathre-Berquist Incorporated dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. And C. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions, one. And D. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan for 12 buildings, (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Berquist Incorporated dated 10-19-06, subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. And is that it? McDonald: That will do it. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Keefe: Friendly amendment? McDonald: Friendly amendment. First of all, will you accept a friendly amendment Debbie? Larson: Yes, I'll accept a friendly amendment. Depends on what it is. Keefe: Will you incorporate the retaining wall language from the subdivision ordinance into this. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 40 McDonald: Okay, let me ask staff. Generous: It'd be in the site plan. McDonald: It is? We can do that then? Okay, I just want to make sure I'm not creating a problem here trying to direct something that we can't. Okay. You've heard the friendly amendment is to incorporate our ordinance for retaining walls into this, into the conditions. If you will accept. Larson: That's fine. McDonald: Okay, and where would that go? Generous: Number 7 under site plan. Keefe: Number 7? Okay. McDonald: Number 7 under engineering conditions? Keefe: Well it'd just be a new. Retaining walls. McDonald: Okay, number 7. Retaining walls. Okay. And incorporate city's, the language underneath. Okay. Keefe: Incorporate language from the subdivision, language regarding retaining walls from the subdivision ordinance. McDonald: You okay with that Bob? You got that? Okay. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the Rezoning of the western portion of the site from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor with a Variance to locate the storm water pond within the Bluff Creek primary zone, in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans shall be revised to show the correct Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 41 2. The applicant shall develop a restoration plan for the upland areas within the primary zone that includes native plants for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City before installation. 3. The property owner shall dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over the primary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 4. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. 6. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve of the Conditional Use Permit for multiple buildings (up to 14) on one parcel subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the two buildings immediately adjacent to Audubon Road shall require a separate site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 12 buildings (one clubhouse/museum building and 11 storage buildings totaling approximately 177,000 square feet of building area), plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated 10-19-2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional windows or doors must be incorporated in the clubhouse eastern building elevation to comply with the 50 percent transparency requirement. 2. Water Resource Coordinator conditions: a. The plans shall be revised to show how the water routed through Wetland Area B will be conveyed to the proposed stormwater pond. b. The plans shall be revised to show only non-exempt wetlands. Wetland buffer areas at least 16.5 feet in width shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance prior to grading commencing. All wetlands and wetland buffer Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 42 areas to be preserved shall be protected by silt fence during grading. All structures shall be set back at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c. The plans shall be revised to show the correct primary zone boundary. Additionally, the primary zone boundary shall be terminated at the property lines for the subject property because the above description of the primary zone boundary is not an accurate description of the primary zone on adjacent properties. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be posted at least every 300 feet along the primary zone boundary. d. A conditional use permit and variance shall be obtained prior to alteration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. e. Drainage and utility easements over the stormwater pond and areas necessary for pond access (including an easement over the main drive aisle through the site from Audubon Road to the pond) shall be dedicated to the City prior to recording the site plan. The parking areas and drive aisles shall be swept each spring to prevent sand from leaving the site. Documentation of sweeping activity shall be submitted to the City annually. f. The plans shall be revised to include Chanhassen’s standard details for stormwater infrastructure and erosion and sediment control, including 3107, 3108, 3109, 5300, 5301 and 5302A. A detail for the proposed temporary perforated riser pipe shall also be included in the plans. g. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) is needed; a detail shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e., the basins shall provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from at least a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). The outlet pipe shall discharge upstream from the edge of the receiving wetland and shall be stabilized with riprap. h. Chanhassen Type II silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. The silt fence shall be installed in overlapping “J-hooks” to break up the sections and provide additional water and sediment retaining capacity. i. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes on site steeper than 3:1. The plans shall be revised to depict blanket locations and shall provide a detail for blanket installation. j. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. k. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 43 l. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the site and approved by City staff prior to issuing a permit. The SWPPP shall include a provision that requires temporary seeding of stockpiles if left exposed for more than 14 days. m. The plans shall be revised to include energy dissipation on all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation. n. The plans shall be revised to replace hay bale curbside inlet controls with Wimco-type inlet controls. A detail shall be provided. The controls shall be installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. o. All perimeter controls shall follow the City’s specifications. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the City and the SWCD prior to grading. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants. b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen city Ordinance #9-1. c. Yellow curbing and no parking fire lane signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and signs to be installed. d. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. e. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. f. Submit radius turn dimensions to City engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4. 4. Building Official Conditions: a. The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 44 c. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. d. Every building containing any plumbing fixtures and/or receptors, must have its own independent connection with a public or private sewer, except that a group of buildings may be connected to one or more manholes which are constructed on the premises and connected to a public or private sewer (MSPC 4715.310). No building sewer shall be less than 4 inches in diameter (MSPC 4715.2310). Building drain must be by gravity (MSPC 4715.2430). The distance between cleanouts in horizontal piping shall not exceed 50 feet for 3-inch or less in size and not over 100 feet for 4-inch and over in size (MSPC 4715.1010. 5. Forester conditions: a. All existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road shall be preserved and protected with tree preservation fencing during construction. Any City boulevard tree that dies or is removed will be required to be replaced. b. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 82 overstory trees within the vehicular use area. c. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 23 overstory trees along the northwest property line buffer yard. d. The slope along the Bluff Creek primary zone shall be seeded with an approved native seed mix. e. Plant selections for landscape requirements shall incorporate native species for buffer yard and parking lot landscaping 6. Engineering Conditions: a. The grading plan must be revised to show proposed pavement grades for the driveway access to the northern office/warehouse. b. The grading plan must show proposed pavement grades. c. Pavement grades must not exceed 10%. d. The private streets within the development must be constructed to a nine-ton design. e. An additional spot elevation must be shown on the south end of the storage building immediately west of the northern office/warehouse to ensure positive drainage. f. Note the proposed rim and invert elevation of the storm sewer located at the driveway intersection south of bore hole location #3. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 45 g. The developer must coordinate with City staff to ensure that pond maintenance and emergency vehicles will be able to access the gated area. h. The width of the drive aisle southeast of the pond must be minimum 26 feet wide in addition to the proposed parallel parking stalls. i. If fire code permits, staff recommends that the private watermain be six-inch diameter for water quality purposes. j. The City’s construction observer shall be present for all sanitary sewer and watermain testing to ensure that the proposed connections to the City facilities are in conformance with engineering standards. k. The developer shall pay for the inspection bills and submit a $5,000.00 security to ensure payment of these bills. 7. The retaining wall shall follow the standards for retaining walls incorporated in the subdivision regulations.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT, CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION, SECTION 18-41, FINAL PLAT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Anyone wishing to come forward to make comment, please come to the podium. State your name and address. Okay, seeing no one come forward, close the public meeting. I bring it back before the commissioners for discussion. Okay? Okay, okay. Looking for a motion. Keefe: I'll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. McDonald: Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. McDonald: Okay, I have a second. Keefe moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Meeting - November 21, 2006 46 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 3, 2006 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. Of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: December 11, 2006 SUBJ: Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements Project No. 06-05: Cancel Assessment Hearing Previously Scheduled for December 11, 2006 and Call a New Assessment Hearing REQUESTED ACTION The City Council is requested to recall the assessment hearing for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements for January 8, 2007. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing and authorized preparation of plans and specifications the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements. These improvements included the collector road and trunk utility improvements within the 2005 MUSA area. On April 10, 2006, the City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids for the improvements. On June 12, 2006, the City Council awarded a construction contract for the Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements. On November 27, 2006, the City Council previously called an assessment hearing for this project to be held on December 11, 2006, however, Carver County did not have all the property identification numbers updated for the developments so notices were not able to be sent out to meet the required notification period. DISCUSSION The following is a description of the improvements included as a part of the project: · Construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to approximately 4,100 feet to the east. · Construction of turn lanes and a traffic signal at the Audubon Road and Bluff Creek Boulevard intersection. · Installation of trunk watermain along Bluff Creek Boulevard. · Installation of trunk sanitary sewer along Bluff Creek Boulevard. · Construction of storm sewer and ponding improvements along Bluff Creek Boulevard. · Construction of retaining walls in the vicinity of the Bluff Creek crossing. · Installation of street lighting and landscaping along Bluff Creek Boulevard. Todd Gerhardt December 11, 2006 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc The project is 90% complete. The only major work left for next year is paving the final lift of bituminous. The estimated final construction costs for the improvements described above are as follows: Improvement Estimated Cost Bluff Creek Boulevard - Street, Storm Sewer $ 3,085,452.36 and Bridge Improvements Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 505,198.99 Watermain Improvements $ 254,997.30 Audubon Intersection Improvements $ 639,886.09 Indirect Costs (Administrative, Legal & Engineering) $ 1,224,276.74 Total Cost $ 5,709,811.48 The February 2006 Feasibility Study and Report for the project identified a total estimated cost of $6,185,100 for these improvements. Consistent with the feasibility study for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, a majority of these costs are proposed to be funded through assessments to the benefiting property owners. The following is a summary of the proposed financing plan for the project including the estimated funding amounts included in the February 2006 Feasibility Study and Report for the project. Financing Source February 2006 Feasibility Report Final Amount Special Assessments $ 4,757,500 $ 4,411,980.46 City State Aid Funds (MSA) $ 1,149,400 $ 1,074,958.61 City Water Utility Funds $ 158,900 $ 107,116.67 City Sewer Utility Funds $ 119,300 $ 115,755.74 Total $ 6,185,100 $ 5,709,811.48 The proposed final assessment roll for the project is attached identifying the assessment amounts for each of the individual benefiting property owners. RECOMMENDATION At this time, staff recommends that Council call the assessment hearing for January 8, 2007.” Attachments: 1. Exhibits – Assessment Areas 2. Assessment Roll c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer Dan Remer, Engineering Technician III DATE: December 11, 2006 SUBJ: Approve Street Name Change of Lake Riley Road to Lakeview Road East Project Nos. 95-20 & 06-13 REQUEST (Simple Majority Vote Required) The City Council is requested to approve the attached ordinance changing the street name of Lake Riley Road to Lakeview Road East. BACKGROUND The street in question was dedicated as part of the North Bay plat (1995) and Lakeside plat (2006). DISCUSSION It has been brought to City staffs’ attention that the street name in the North Bay Addition and Lakeside plats (Lake Riley Road) does not correlate with the street name in the field which is Lakeview Road East. The homes are addressed Lakeview Road East. Staff is requesting the name change from Lake Riley Road to Lakeview Road East to accommodate the residences. The City Attorney has advised staff that a street name change requires adoption of an ordinance changing the street name by the City Council. The City Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed name change and has no issues with it. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves an ordinance changing the public street name of Lake Riley Road to Lakeview Road East." Attachment: Ordinance c: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal Paul, Oehme, City Engineer Ross Gullickson, Carver County Deputy Jerry Mohn, Building Official g:\eng\projects\k-o\northbay\street name change 2006.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CHANGING A STREET NAME THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The street named “Lake Riley Road” lying north of Lyman Boulevard is changed to “Lakeview Road East”. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of December, 2006, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on ) g:\eng\projects\k-o\northbay\street name change ordinance 2006.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DATE: December 11, 2006 SUBJ: Approval of Engineering Fee Adjustment REQUESTED ACTION Approve the attached resolution approving the adjustment of Engineering fees. DISCUSSION The City Engineering/Public Works Division provides several services for which a fee is charged. Attached are the current fees for the cities of Chanhassen and Minneapolis and Hennepin County; the proposed fees are also shown. The proposed 2007 Fee Schedule is also enclosed The City fees have not been adjusted for several years. This revision will better reflect the cost of providing these services. Enclosures G:\ENG\Engineering Fees\staff report 12-11-06.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director DATE: December 11, 2006 SUBJ: Adoption of the Proposed 2007 Budget and CIP The City of Chanhassen has gone through an extensive process in evaluating its budgets and capital improvement plans (CIP) for 2007 through 2011. This process was finalized with the Truth-in-Taxation hearing last Monday. Staff is recommending that the 2007 Budget and the CIP be adopted as presented. It should be noted that during 2007 staff will be looking for opportunities to find one time expenditure savings in the general fund that would potentially reduce the amount of cash being used to write-down the debt levies (i.e. $63,000). BACKGROUND The final 2007 Budget being adopted is for a total levy of $9,575,778, which is $220,888 or 2.4% less than the 2006 levy. The average homeowner should see no increase in the city portion of their property tax bill, and in most cases, residents will see a slight decrease. CIP The CIP funds larger construction and building projects such as a public works facility, a fire station, and the eventual purchase of a second water treatment plant. The CIP also accounts for other infrastructure purchases such as streets, water lines and wells, storm water construction and upgrades, and sanitary sewer lines. In addition, the CIP funds our capital replacement fund with a levy of $824,000 on an annual basis, to fund ongoing equipment replacements and purchases. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the budget and CIP as presented on December 11, 2006. This vote requires a simple majority of those present. Adoption of the Proposed 2007 Budget and CIP December 11, 2006 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution Adopting the 2007 Budget 2. PowerPoint Presentation: 2007 Budget & CIP Adoption 3. 2007 Budget 4. 2007-11 CIP 5. General Fund Levy and Tax History spreadsheet 6. 2006 Vs. 2007 Budget Increase by line item De c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 6 1 Ci t y o f C h a n h a s s e n 20 0 6 Fi n a l L e v y a n d C I P A d o p t i o n 2 Ex p e n d i t u r e s 20 0 6 Bu d g e t 20 0 7 Bu d g e t % Change from 2006 Ge n e r a l G o v e r n m e n t $1 , 8 9 5 , 1 0 0 $1 , 9 7 9 , 2 0 0 4.4% La w E n f o r c e m e n t $2 , 7 4 7 , 7 0 0 $2 , 8 3 7 , 6 0 0 3.3% Pu b l i c W o r k s $1 , 9 0 0 , 4 0 0 $2 , 0 8 9 , 4 0 0 9.9% Co m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t $3 9 2 , 8 0 0 $4 1 1 , 9 0 0 4.8% Pa r k s & R e c r e a t i o n $1 , 6 7 9 , 1 0 0 $1 , 7 4 4 , 3 0 0 3.9% Tr a n s f e r t o D e b t S e r v i c e $2 8 5 , 0 0 0 (100%) To t a l $8 , 9 0 0 , 1 0 0 $9 , 0 6 2 , 4 0 0 1.8% 3 Re v e n u e s 20 0 6 Bu d g e t 2007 Budget% Change from 2006 Pr o p e r t y T a x $6 , 1 7 9 , 6 0 0 $6 , 2 8 8 , 1 0 0 1.8% Li c e n s e s & P e r m i t s $1 , 2 7 1 , 5 0 0 $1 , 5 2 5 , 3 0 0 20.0% In t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l R e v . $2 0 5 , 0 0 0 $205,0000.0% Ch a r g e s f o r S e r v i c e s $6 5 9 , 5 0 0 $660,5000.2% Fi n e s & P e n a l t i e s $7 6 , 5 0 0 $136,50078.4% Ot h e r R e v e n u e $2 2 3 , 0 0 0 $247,00010.8% To t a l R e v e n u e $8 , 6 1 5 , 1 0 0 $9 , 0 6 2 , 4 0 0 5.2% 4 Ge n e r a l F u n d E x p e n d i t u r e H i s t o r y $ 8 , 1 1 1 , 7 2 4 $ 0 $ 7 , 8 6 0 , 7 8 5 $ 8 1 5 , 0 0 0 $ 7 , 8 6 0 , 7 8 5 $ 8 2 1 , 8 8 5 $ 8 , 3 0 7 , 9 2 0 $0$8,615,100 $285,000$9,062,400 $0 0 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 4 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s T r a n s f e r s t o D e b t S e r v i c e 5 Wh a t f a c t o r s c h a n g e th e b u d g e t f o r 2 0 0 7 ? „ Op e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s w i l l r i s e f o r i n c r e a s e d pe r s o n n e l c o s t s a n d h e a t i n g a n d f u e l c o s t s . „ To t a l G e n e r a l F u n d e x p e n d i t u r e s i n c r e a s e 5. 1 9 % , w i t h D e b t S e r v i c e T r a n s f e r f r o m P r i o r ye a r , t h e i n c r e a s e i s 1 . 8 2 % . „ No t r a n s f e r w i l l b e m a d e o u t o f t h e g e n e r a l fu n d f o r d e b t s e r v i c e i n 2 0 0 7 . 6 Ta x C a p a c i t y L e v y C h a n g e s Ta x C a p a c i t y L e v i e s 20 0 6 2007% Chg Ge n e r a l F u n d $6 , 3 9 9 , 6 0 0 $6 , 5 5 8 , 1 0 0 +2.5 Ca p i t a l R e p l a c e m e n t $8 0 0 , 0 0 0 $824,000+1.8 MS A ( P a v e m e n t M g m t ) $2 1 6 , 5 0 0 $250,750+15.9 Sp e c i a l A s s e s s m e n t D e b t $1 2 9 , 3 0 0 $129,500+0.2 Ge n e r a l O b l i g a t i o n D e b t $5 6 4 , 6 1 4 $568,280+0.6 ED A D e b t $1 2 2 , 0 4 8 $122,548+0.7 TO T A L T A X CA P A C I T Y L E V I E S $8 , 2 3 2 , 0 6 2 $8 , 4 5 3 , 1 7 8 +2.7 7 Ma r k e t V a l u e L e v y C h a n g e s Ma r k e t V a l u e L e v i e s 20 0 6 2007% Chg Pa r k R e f e r e n d u m $6 3 6 , 1 2 8 $633,500-0.4 Li b r a r y R e f e r e n d u m $4 8 6 , 7 0 0 $489,100+0.5 TO T A L M A R K E T VA L U E L E V I E S $1 , 1 2 2 , 8 2 8 $1 , 1 2 2 , 6 0 0 -0.1 8 Ne t T a x L e v y E f f e c t s „ Ge n e r a l F u n d l e v y s l i g h t i n c r e a s e o f 2 . 5 % . „ De b t S e r v i c e l e v y r e m a i n s f l a t a t 0 . 1 % in c r e a s e . „ To t a l t a x l e v y i n c r e a s e o f $ 2 2 0 , 8 8 8 o r 2 . 4 % . 9 Ef f e c t o n H o m e o w n e r s Th e a v e r a g e p r o p e r t y o w n e r w i l l s e e a z e r o pe r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n t h e C i t y ’ s p o r t i o n o f t h e i r pr o p e r t y t a x b i l l a s s u m i n g t h e i r m a r k e t v a l u e di d n o t i n c r e a s e m o r e t h a n t h e a v e r a g e i n t h e ci t y , w i t h o u t i m p r o v e m e n t s o r d u e t o o t h e r as s e s s e d a d j u s t m e n t s . 10 Re c o m m e n d a t i o n „ Ad o p t t h e t a x l e v y , b u d g e t , a n d C I P a s pr e s e n t e d Ci t y O f C h a n h a s s e n Le v y , G e n e r a l F u n d & T a x R a t e H i s t o r y Ge n e r a l F u n d Pe r e c e n t De b t S e r v i c e To t a l G e n e r a l Pe r c e n t Ge n e r a l F u n d Pe r c e n t To t a l Pe r c e n t Ye a r Bu d g e t e d E x p Ch a n g e Tr a n s f e r s Fu n d B u d g e t Ch a n g e Le v y Ch a n g e Le v y Ch a n g e 20 0 3 7, 8 6 0 , 7 8 5 $ 90 0 , 4 7 0 $ 8, 7 6 1 , 2 5 5 6, 4 7 5 , 9 3 5 $ 8, 6 3 9 , 1 6 7 $ 20 0 4 7, 8 6 0 , 7 8 5 0. 0 0 % 82 1 , 9 1 5 8, 6 8 2 , 7 0 0 -0 . 9 0 % 6, 3 1 8 , 0 0 0 -2 . 4 4 % 8, 6 3 9 , 1 6 7 0. 0 0 % 20 0 5 8, 3 0 7 , 9 2 0 5. 6 9 % - 8, 3 0 7 , 9 2 0 -4 . 3 2 % 5, 9 1 1 , 8 2 0 -6 . 4 3 % 9, 4 3 9 , 7 5 4 9. 2 7 % 20 0 6 8, 6 1 5 , 1 0 0 3. 7 0 % 28 5 , 0 0 0 8, 9 0 0 , 1 0 0 7. 1 3 % 6, 1 7 9 , 6 0 0 4. 5 3 % 9, 3 5 4 , 8 9 0 -0 . 9 0 % 20 0 7 9, 0 6 2 , 4 0 0 5. 1 9 % - 9, 0 6 2 , 4 0 0 1. 8 2 % 6, 2 8 8 , 1 0 0 1. 7 6 % 9, 5 7 5 , 7 7 8 2. 3 6 % Di f f f r o m 2 0 0 3 t o 2 0 0 7 1, 2 0 1 , 6 1 5 $ 15 . 2 9 % 30 1 , 1 4 5 $ 3. 4 4 % (1 8 7 , 8 3 5 ) $ -2 . 9 0 % 93 6 , 6 1 1 $ 10 . 8 4 % Ac t u a l Ta x Pe r c e n t Ne w C o n s t Ra t e Ch a n g e 39 . 0 9 1 2. 9 0 % 32 . 9 8 1 -1 5 . 6 3 % 2. 2 8 % 28 . 1 7 2 -1 4 . 5 8 % 2. 7 1 % 26 . 6 7 8 -5 . 3 0 % 2. 9 2 % 24 . 8 4 8 -6 . 8 6 % 10 . 8 1 % (1 4 . 2 4 3 ) -3 6 . 4 4 % To t a l L e v y - I n c l u d e s D e b t L e v i e s , C a p i t a l R e p l a c e m e n t F u n d L e v y , s e a l c o a t i n g l e v y , a n d G e n e r a l F u n d L e v y . = I n c l u d e s a C a p i t a l R e p l a c e m e n t L e v y o f $ 8 2 4 , 0 0 0 i m p l e m e n t e d i n 2 0 0 5 . Co m p a r a b l e T a x R a t e s 2 0 0 6 Ci t y Ta x R a t e Ch a s k a 19 . 8 2 1 Ch a n h a s s e n 26 . 6 7 8 Mi n n e t o n k a 28 . 7 4 3 Sh o r e w o o d 28 . 9 1 8 Ed e n P r a i r i e 28 . 9 6 4 Sh a k o p e e 30 . 9 7 4 Ex c e l s i o r 31 . 7 4 6 Wa c o n i a 32 . 5 7 4 Vi c t o r i a 37 . 3 9 8