Loading...
City Council Packet 3-10-14AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2014 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Commission Interviews and Discussions commission interviews.pdf REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under 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 staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. Approval of City Council Minutes dated February 24, 2014 02 -24 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 02 -24 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 02 -24 -14 -cc.pdf Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 18, 2014 02 -18 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 02 -18 -14 -pc.pdf Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements, City Project No. 13 -04: Approve Resolution Concurring with County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Designation for Highway 101 from Scott County Line to CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive); Approve Resolution Establishing a No Parking Zone for Highway 101 from the Scott County Line to CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) and CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) from Bluff Creek Drive to Highway 101. hwy 101 river crossing crossing rev.pdf Lyman Boulevard Improvement Project: Approve Concurrence of Bids. lyman bids.pdf Well No. 10: Approve Change Order for Screen Cleaning. well maintenance co.pdf Camden Ridge, Located West of Highway 212, North of Pioneer Trail, and East of Pioneer Pass, Applicant: Lennar Approve Minor Amendment to Adjust Side Yard Setbacks for Single - Family Detached Housing on 36.2 Acres Zoned Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R) camden ridge pud amendment.pdf Approve Resolution Accepting Ownership of Outlots B, C, E, and F. camden ridge outlots.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda. NEW BUSINESS Lakeside 8th Addition: Request for Subdivision of .2338 Acres (Replat of Lots 1 -3, Block 3, Lakeside 7th Addition) into Two Lots, and a Site Plan Amendment to Change a Three -Unit Townhouse to a Twinhome on Property Zoned Planned Unit Development -Residential, and Located at 35, 45, and 55 Riley Curve; Applicant: Ron Clark Construction, Inc. lakeside 8th addition.pdf Municipal Consent and Adopt Resolution Approving Layout No. 4, and Imposing a No Parking Zone: Hennepin County Highway 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) Project Between TH 101 & Charlson Road in Eden Prairie. highway 61 mc.pdf Appointments to the Planning Commission (refer to Item A -1) COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET ADJOURNMENT GUIDE 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 5 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 Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the public are welcome. A.5:30 P.M. 1. Documents: B.7:00 P.M. C. D. E. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: 3. Documents: 4. Documents: 5. Documents: 6. a. Documents: b. Documents: F. G. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: 3. H. I. J. K. AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2014 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Commission Interviews and Discussions commission interviews.pdf REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under 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 staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report.Approval of City Council Minutes dated February 24, 2014 02 -24 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 02 -24 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 02 -24 -14 -cc.pdf Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 18, 2014 02 -18 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 02 -18 -14 -pc.pdf Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements, City Project No. 13 -04: Approve Resolution Concurring with County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Designation for Highway 101 from Scott County Line to CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive); Approve Resolution Establishing a No Parking Zone for Highway 101 from the Scott County Line to CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) and CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) from Bluff Creek Drive to Highway 101.hwy 101 river crossing crossing rev.pdf Lyman Boulevard Improvement Project: Approve Concurrence of Bids.lyman bids.pdf Well No. 10: Approve Change Order for Screen Cleaning. well maintenance co.pdf Camden Ridge, Located West of Highway 212, North of Pioneer Trail, and East of Pioneer Pass, Applicant: Lennar Approve Minor Amendment to Adjust Side Yard Setbacks for Single - Family Detached Housing on 36.2 Acres Zoned Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R) camden ridge pud amendment.pdf Approve Resolution Accepting Ownership of Outlots B, C, E, and F. camden ridge outlots.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda. NEW BUSINESS Lakeside 8th Addition: Request for Subdivision of .2338 Acres (Replat of Lots 1 -3, Block 3, Lakeside 7th Addition) into Two Lots, and a Site Plan Amendment to Change a Three -Unit Townhouse to a Twinhome on Property Zoned Planned Unit Development -Residential, and Located at 35, 45, and 55 Riley Curve; Applicant: Ron Clark Construction, Inc. lakeside 8th addition.pdf Municipal Consent and Adopt Resolution Approving Layout No. 4, and Imposing a No Parking Zone: Hennepin County Highway 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) Project Between TH 101 & Charlson Road in Eden Prairie. highway 61 mc.pdf Appointments to the Planning Commission (refer to Item A -1) COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET ADJOURNMENT GUIDE 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 5 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 Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the public are welcome. A.5:30 P.M.1.Documents:B.7:00 P.M.C.D.E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.Documents:5. Documents: 6. a. Documents: b. Documents: F. G. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: 3. H. I. J. K. AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2014 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Commission Interviews and Discussions commission interviews.pdf REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under 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 staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report.Approval of City Council Minutes dated February 24, 2014 02 -24 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 02 -24 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 02 -24 -14 -cc.pdf Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 18, 2014 02 -18 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 02 -18 -14 -pc.pdf Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements, City Project No. 13 -04: Approve Resolution Concurring with County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Designation for Highway 101 from Scott County Line to CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive); Approve Resolution Establishing a No Parking Zone for Highway 101 from the Scott County Line to CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) and CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) from Bluff Creek Drive to Highway 101.hwy 101 river crossing crossing rev.pdf Lyman Boulevard Improvement Project: Approve Concurrence of Bids.lyman bids.pdf Well No. 10: Approve Change Order for Screen Cleaning.well maintenance co.pdf Camden Ridge, Located West of Highway 212, North of Pioneer Trail, and East of Pioneer Pass, Applicant: Lennar Approve Minor Amendment to Adjust Side Yard Setbacks for Single -Family Detached Housing on 36.2 Acres Zoned Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R)camden ridge pud amendment.pdf Approve Resolution Accepting Ownership of Outlots B, C, E, and F.camden ridge outlots.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda.NEW BUSINESS Lakeside 8th Addition: Request for Subdivision of .2338 Acres (Replat of Lots 1 -3, Block 3, Lakeside 7th Addition) into Two Lots, and a Site Plan Amendment to Change a Three -Unit Townhouse to a Twinhome on Property Zoned Planned Unit Development -Residential, and Located at 35, 45, and 55 Riley Curve; Applicant: Ron Clark Construction, Inc.lakeside 8th addition.pdf Municipal Consent and Adopt Resolution Approving Layout No. 4, and Imposing a No Parking Zone: Hennepin County Highway 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) Project Between TH 101 & Charlson Road in Eden Prairie.highway 61 mc.pdf Appointments to the Planning Commission (refer to Item A -1)COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET ADJOURNMENT GUIDE 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 5 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 Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the public are welcome. A.5:30 P.M.1.Documents:B.7:00 P.M.C.D.E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.Documents:5.Documents:6.a.Documents:b.Documents:F.G.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.H.I.J.K. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, and Jill Sinclair UPDATE ON EMERALD ASH BORER. Todd Gerhardt gave an introduction to the Emerald Ash Borer discussion. Jill Sinclair shared samples of the actual bug and larvae before giving a presentation about the Ash Borer. She explained how the ash borer disrupts the transport of water and kills the tree. Ash trees are often partially filled out, so it can be hard to tell which trees are affected. One tell tale sign i s the presence of woodpeckers, who love to feast on the bug. Jill gave a short history of how Emerald Ash Borer has traveled to Minnesota, where it is confirmed in 4 counties, the closest being Hennepin County and t he closest confirmed tree in Lakewood Cemetery in Minneapolis. There are parasitic wasps that have been released and are intended to control the Emerald Ash Borer population. All recent confirmations have been to the north and east. Luckily, it doesn ’t seem to be spreading west. Most spread has been through human movement. The insects on their own move slowly, maybe ½ mile a year. So, what ’s the big deal? The Emerald Ash Borer is fatal to all types of ash trees . Impacts rise expo n entially once insect populations rise. Jill showed before and after pictures of streets devastated by ash tree deaths with noticeable difference s in aes th etic and environmental impacts. The stormwater doesn ’t receive as much treatment, the street gets hotter, homes can be hotter, lawns are drie r and can have impacts on real estate values. She explained that Chanhassen has three gentleman volunteers trained through the U of MN Tree Master program who have worked to conduct a tree inventory over the last three years . This inventory allows the City to start to implement best management practices. How many ash trees are in Chanhassen? 20% of city right-of-way trees are Ash (1230) and 76,000 (25%) of front yard trees. Guidelines call for no more than 20% of any type of tree so Chanhassen is right where they should be. The front yard tree number s was derived from a windshield survey conducted by the DNR. They have no idea what ’s in people ’s backyards , forested areas or trail corridors. The green ash is native to this area. Chanhassen Hills P ark is 50% ash right now. Jill presented a species summary of all public trees in Chanhassen and gave an overview of Chanhassen ’s management plan. The City has had time to watch other communities work through this infestation and has found a combo approach works best . You need a combo of removal, treatment, and replanting. It ’s too expensive to treat every tree, and not every tree is worth treating. A combo approach allows you to work it into your current workload and budget. Trees in poor condition or in a bad location should go immediately. Council asked for more explanation on bad locations/condition. Studies show that trees less than 10 inches in diameter are not worth treating. Councilman Laufenburger a sked how old a 10 inch tree would be . Jill explained that d epending on growing conditions, 10-15 years. Mayor Furlong asked why we wouldn ’t leave a tree in fair condition less than 10 inches until Emerald Ash Borer is here . Jill Sinclair agreed, but also noted that we will want to manage the inventory so we don ’t have the critical mass problem. Councilman Laufenburger asked if the Emerald Ash Borer can discern between poor and healthy trees. Jill said maybe in the beginning, but not really and noted there will be a point where every ash tree is either dead or treated. It will be present, but managed m uch like Dutch Elm disease. This will be about 10-15 years City Council Work Session – February 24, 2014 2 into treatment and at that point the City may be able to scale back treatment of the ash trees. She presented an inventory of the health of the city ’s ash trees noting that a large majority are in good condition with a little more than half being bigger than 10 inches in diameter. The City is trying to manage Emerald Ash Borer within the current workload and budget . The City continue s to offer public education , p ublic works staff ha ve been trained on how to identify Emerald Ash Borer and Jill continues to attend educational courses. Staff asked for direction to return to the City Council with an Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. Councilman Laufenburger asked what the Arboretum is doing. Jill explained that t hey are going to wait until Emerald Ash Borer is confirmed within 5 miles and then treat. The Arboretum doesn ’t have poor condition trees and they will be working harder to save trees as they are an agency responsibility for seed source. Todd Gerhardt outlined what staff envisions the Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan would look like. Mayor Furlong inquired whether to treat Ash trees the same way as Elm trees, i.e identifying and requiring residents to remove them. Jill cautioned that this could be staff-time intensive. Mayor Furlong asked for more background on how the City dealt with elm tree removals noting that in the last few years the City has been working on planting non-ash trees near ash trees in parks in anticipation of Emerald Ash Borer. Councilman Laufenburger asked what are the best replacement trees. Todd Gerhardt advocated for female G inkgo trees. Councilman Laufenburger asked about trees that might not be successful. Jill identified the eastern pin oak as a poor choice for our soils and presently the city has 21% maple trees so we should look towards other types. Mayor Furlong noted that the key is diversity. Councilman Laufenburger asked for future explanation o n the cost to treat each tree over its lifetime. Jill Sinclair noted that many communities are not planning to treat for the lifetime of the tree but to give more time for removal and replacement. Mayor F urlong closed by directing Jill Sinclair to continue work ing on the Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan by looking at o rdinances, costs, phasing, etc. DISCUSS CSAH 61 IMPROVEMENTS/FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT. Paul Oehme introduced the project and Jason Sabal and Jennifer Lowry with Hennepin County, the lead agency for this project and noted that it ’s been a great relationship . He explained that Council will consider municipal consent at their next meeting before reviewing the reconstruction p roject of Flying Cloud Drive from Hwy 101 to Carlson R oad (3.7 mile segment ) with m any agencies involved, including Chan hassen , Carver County, Eden Prairie , MnDOT, F ish and W ildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, and BWSR. Hennepin County has controlled the corridor since September, 2010. MNDOT has provided funding for this project through turnback funds. Paul recited statistics regarding traffic on the road noting that t raffic has dropped dramatically since new Highway 212 opened. Henn epin County projects a 2% increase in trips per year with a good portion of that increase a s truck traffic. Crashes are now below average. He provided an overview of project goals , including mitigating flood impacts, improving safety, replace the existing pavement, improving water quality, creating a pedestrian friendly corridor to tie in to parks and trail corridors and a list of specific improvements include retaining walls, land bridges, right- turn lanes, and intersection improvements. Mayor Furlong asked if the road will be built so it can be striped to four lanes. Jason Sabal said it has the potential to be, but there would need to be intersection improvements. Mayor Furlong asked if there was room in the corridor, and Jason believed there is. Mayor Furlong noted that with the improvements at the river crossing be ing 4-lanes, it would be nice to have it potential ly match up , u nderstanding that the funding source requires specific limitations of building to the previous standards. Todd Gerhardt explained that some of that would be development driven and require developer participation. Mayor Furlong noted that the City should just be prepared, knowing that there will be 4-lanes at either end of the corridor. Jennifer Lowry noted one of the reason s the trail is set so far back is to allow turn lanes to be added in the future at the lowest possible cost. Paul showed photos of the proposed retaining walls that will have the least impact to the bluff and the three City Council Work Session – February 24, 2014 3 bridge spans over sections of poor soils. Jason Sabal reviewed the EAW , thanked the Council for having them at the meeting and explained that Hennepin County asks for municipal consent during the prelim inary part of the project, a little different than how Carver County does it. Hennepin County likes to know that the City is on board with the plans and that Chanhassen and Eden Prairie will give municipal consent. Major environmental concerns include wetland impacts, bluff impacts, wildlife that likes to cross the corridor, and S tate listed plant species with in construction limits. He explained that t here are two watersheds within the construction limits and a couple of ponds being added. One is being built with the wye project, one near Lions Tap, and one near Richard Anderson park. There are some cultural resources, though not as much as with the wye project. Paul reviewed the project schedule. Mayor Furlong asked if Carver C ounty has raised any concern. Paul and Jason agreed they had not. All agencies are supportive and talks are in progress with property owners for right-of-way acquisition . Councilman Laufenburger asked when a detour route will be available. Jason Sabal said it will likely be Pioneer Trail. Paul Oehme discussed staging to not have the entire corridor shut down for 3-4 years. Mayor Furlong noted that Highway 101 is currently substandard , especially with the traffic it will have to absorb. Jason Sabal expressed a commitment to keeping the closures to a minimum, but the construction conditions and soils are very challenging. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Laurie Hokkanen and Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, and City Attorney Tom Scott PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager ’s recommendations: 1.Approval of City Council Minutes dated February 10, 2014 2.Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 2014 3.TH 101 Minnesota River Crossing & CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive): Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County and Approval of Plans and Specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Chief John Wolff provided an update on the Weather Service flood outlook for 2014 spring, a note for residents to keep hydrants clear of snow , comments on the dangers of winter heating, and update on calls for service numbers. Lieutenant Enevold was not present and council members did not have any questions on the report in the packet. CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE BARRICADE BETWEEN KIOWA TRAIL AND SPINRGFIELD DRIVE. Mayor Furlong explained that it was asked that this item come before the council separate from the Kiowa Trail street improvement project and provided background information. Paul Oehme pres ented the staff report update and outlined p roposed traffic calming items if the barricade was removed. Councilman Laufenburger asked if it was customary to put a stop sign where it is currently located as you ’re entering onto Springfield Drive from Lyman Boulevard . He asked about regulations for lowering the speed limit, and clarification of the speed study data. Councilwoman Ernst asked for clarification of the original motion made by Councilman Laufenburger at the January 27 th meeting and what is being proposed toda y to separate the barricade from the street project. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the normal traffic levels in residential neighbor hoods. Councilwoman Ernst asked if staff has any data to show that traffic circles slow traffic. Councilman McDonald questioned the location of the traffic circle. Councilman Laufenburger asked about the suggestion of installing signage restricting left turn movements into the Springfield neighborhood off of Lyman during certain hours of the day. Mayor Furlong opened the meeting for public comment. Erika Messmer, 9140 Sunnyvale Drive , speaking on behalf of the City Council Summary – February 24, 2014 2 Springfield Homeowner ’s Association , explained that on February 14 th the Springfield Homeowner ’s Board issued a letter to the City expressing their position that the barrier between Springfield and Kiowa neighborhoods remain in place. Pam Morley, 9143 Springfield Drive , noting this is the fourth meeting she ’s attended regarding the Springfield barrier and living across the street from the Springfield pool, expressed safety concerns during the summer from speeding cut through traffic and does not want to see a catastrophic event occur because of opening the barrier. Curt Kobilarcsik, 9149 Springfield Drive shared new information by reading from the Minutes of the December 13, 1993 City Council meeting where the preliminary plat for Springfield was approved. He clarified that the neighborhood ’s concerns with safety was traffic safety, and reviewed the points in an email he sent to City Council and city staff on February 4 th and re-sent on February 18 th . Jamie Heilicher, 9280 Kiowa Trail commented that the people who will benefit the most from removing the barrier are the residents of Springfield , his concern that removal of the barrier is not a benefit to Kiowa Trail and it will change their neighborhood to the negative. Fred Souza, 9150 Springfield Drive thanked the City Manager for listening to the residents and separating the barrier issue from the street project and implored the City Council to listen to the residents and keep the barrier up. Matt Mason, 9198 Springfield explained he doesn ’t understand the connection between finishing construction of Highway 212 and taking down the barrier, and asked that after the public portion of the meeting is closed he would like to hear every council member ’s opinion on the safest solution for their neighborhood. Mayor Furlong closed the public comment portion of the meeting. After council members provided comments, the following motion was made. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council authorizes removal of the barricade between Springfield Drive and Kiowa Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: A.KIOWA TRAIL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PROJECT, ACCEPTING THE REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS; AND APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. B.MINNEWASHTA SHORES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Mayor Furlong reviewed the motion that was tabled at the January 27 th meeting and how to proceed procedurally. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve an amendment that any reference to the barrier between Kiowa Trail and Springfield Drive in the motion made on January 27, 2014 be removed. All voted in favor and the motion to approve the amendment carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Paul Oehme presented the staff report on the two street improvement projects. Councilman Laufenburger asked if paving of Highway 101 would affect the Kiowa Trail street project. Mayor Furlong opened up the meeting for public comment. A Kiowa Trail resident asked that a traffic circle or stop sign be placed where Kiowa Trail and Springfield Drive connect. Cathy Erpelding, 9061 Springfield Drive reiterated what the prior resident stated and expressed concern with speed and safety of pedestrian s . After comments and discussion by council members the following motions were made. Resolution #2014-09: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution authorizing preparation of plans and specifications, approving plans City Council Summary – February 24, 2014 3 and specifications, and authorizing advertising for bids for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvement Project (Kiowa Trail Area). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Resolution #2014-10: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing advertising for bids for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvement Project (Minnewashta Shores Area). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Tjornhom thanked the Park and Rec Department, and especially Mitch Johnson for the luminary walk that she attended on Friday night . ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt provided updates on interviews for the fire chief job and Buy Chanhassen meeting on Tuesday regarding social media. CORRESONDENCE DISCUSSION. Councilman Laufenburger asked for clarification on the Board of Appeals and Equalization process. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, and City Attorney Tom Scott PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good evening and welcome to those here in the council chambers that have joined us this evening, as well as those watching at home. We ’re glad you ’re here. With that we ’ll start this evening and I would ask if there are, from members of the council, if there are any modifications or changes proposed to the agenda. If not, without objection we ’ll proceed with the agenda as published. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager ’s recommendations: 1.Approval of City Council Minutes dated February 10, 2014 2.Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 2014 3.TH 101 Minnesota River Crossing & CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive): Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County and Approval of Plans and Specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Furlong: I don ’t see anyone from the sheriff ’s department here right now so Chief Wolff, you ’re up first tonight. Good evening. Chief John Wolff: Good evening Mayor. Good evening council. Up first and last tonight perhaps. Couple things. We did receive a flood outlook for spring of 2014 from the Weather Service and really to my surprise they ’re calling near normal to slightly below near normal and that ’s because we were in pretty much a drought phase coming into this year so the snow pack, you know current snow pack is not a major concern. We are though expecting another good solid 6 weeks of big time winter so well below normal temperatures and precipitation so we could see a lot more snow and/or rain in the next 6 weeks which could change that outlook. And then of course as things warm up, if you have rain in conjunction with that, that can also impact things on a very local, but we ’ll keep our eye on those things and keep city management apprised. The other concern we have with weather is, with all the snow that we ’ve been getting is just keeping hydrants clear and there was an article in the Villager 2 weeks ago. Appreciate them sharing that message. We saw a number of hydrants getting cleared as a result of that. Our city crews are working round the clock to keep them cleared but we have 2,000 hydrants in our city and we ’re Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 2 also trying to keep sidewalks cleared and other commercial or other infrastructure items too so, so we ’re about 40% buried hydrants in the city and so the message that I would like to share with our citizens is if, if they ’re able bodied. If they have a snowblower and a shovel, get a couple neighbors together and just make sure that the hydrants around their homes are cleared out. I cleared out 4 of them in my neighborhood this past weekend and it ’s, you know it ’s not easy work. It ’s, you know with a big snowblower it took me about 20 minutes per. I know that our city crews have bigger machinery and they can move stuff quicker but we could use the help of the citizenry for that so would appreciate that. Just you know there was a real big fire in Minneapolis last week. You know kind of hit the news. 5 people lost their lives. Very unfortunate and I just wanted to make a couple comments about winter heating. Couple things. If you are using a space heater, make sure it ’s 3 feet away from anything that ’s combustible. That you ’re following the manufacturer ’s directions. That ’s it UL or another agency similar to that approved. And if it is electric, don ’t use extension cords. We find that that sometimes is the cause with the space heater problems. Make sure your smoke detectors are working. You should have a working smoke detector at every level of the home and I would encourage people to also put them in bedrooms. Call volume. So with the winter , which started November 1 st , we ’ve actually, we ’ve seen the highest call levels since 2003 for our fire department and we ’re averaging about 60 calls a month, which is about 30 to 35 percent higher than our normal call volume and we ’ve had some real mild winters where we ’ve been significantly below those numbers but what ’s driving the volume are car accidents. Carbon monoxide. Mostly false alarms and just an increase in medicals with slips and falls and heart related you know situations due to people shoveling real heavy snow so that ’s my report for this month. I ’ll take any questions if there are any. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Chief Wolff this evening? No? Very good. We ’re hoping you ’re wrong on the 6 weeks of winter. Chief John Wolff: I hope I am too. I hate to be the bearer of. Mayor Furlong: Time will tell. Thank you Chief. Chief John Wolff: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Lieutenant Enevold is not here, nor is anyone else from the sheriff ’s office. Something may have come up, which happens. I guess I would ask if anyone has any questions from the report that was included in our packet for Mr. Gerhardt. We can pass that along to Lieutenant Enevold. Otherwise we can follow with him at our next meeting or the next meeting he comes to which will be the end of March. Any questions at this time for Mr. Gerhardt to pass along? No? Okay. Thank you. Let ’s move on then to the next item on our agenda. CONSIDER THE REMOVAL OF THE BARRICADE BETWEEN KIOWA TRAIL AND SPINRGFIELD DRIVE. Mayor Furlong: This is an item that ’s coming to us this evening. At our January 27 th meeting a motion with regard to the street improvements was tabled. That will come back tonight later on our agenda but there was a request to direct, or to have this issue dealt with directly and independently of the street project so with that we will have, get a staff report then with regard to this item and, we had an extensive public hearing at the last meeting with regard to the Kiowa street project. Much of that discussion related to this issue on the barrier. I don ’t expect that we need a repeat of what happened there but certainly after we get a staff report some questions from council to staff, we ’ll certainly listen to some public comment on that as well so we ’ll get to that in a minute but Mr. Gerhardt, let ’s start with a staff report on this issue. Or Mr. Oehme, are you going to be presenting it? Thank you. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 3 Paul Oehme : Just kind of a brief presentation here on the discussion before you tonight for the Kiowa Trail barricade or connection. Just a little background on the discussion and moving forward with the project with this item. Back in December 12 th staff did meet with the neighborhood, Springfield and discuss the proposed barricade removal and kind of informed them about the background of this item. And then again on January 27 th as you recall we did hold a public hearing for the street reconstruction project and Kiowa Trail improvements and the removal of the barricade was discussed at that time, and as the Mayor indicated those two items are now separated. At that meeting too we did discuss a little bit about the language in the Springfield 2 nd Addition development contract. That was back in January 23, 1998 referencing the barricade being temporary until residents petition the city to remove that barricade or when 212 is constructed, and the Springfield development chronology, that information with the development contract and some of the Minutes involved with City Council ’s approval back then is at the table at the sign in sheet too for anyone that wishes to have a copy of that information. And then on February 5 th city staff did meet with residents of Springfield, Kiowa Drive and Kiowa Trail neighborhoods to discuss the traffic calming options and if the barricade were to be removed. At that meeting it was perfectly clear to city staff that the neighborhood reiterated that their request that the barricade be left up at that time. At this time. We did talk about traffic, speed study that was also done. Completed back in October, 2013. Just here are some of the numbers. I think some of these numbers were also in the staff report. Average speeds around 24 miles an hour through the Springfield Drive area, next to the park in the 85 th percentile which is typically would set the speed li mit for streets for state stat ue is right around 28 miles per hour. Some of the items that staff and the neighborhoods did discuss if the barricade were to come down, some traffic calming items. One item that was discussed was putting a traffic circle at the current location at Kiowa Trail and Springfield Drive. It ’s just basically a raised median to allow, to deviate traffic from just going straight through an area. They can make the driver make a right movement. Slows them down and it also, yeah slows the traffic down. It can be aesthetically pleasing too. Center line striping was also discussed at Springfield Park. This would channelize traffic to basically the curb line narrowing the road giving the driver a sense that the road is narrower, which typically leads to slower speeds in these type of situations as well so this is something that could be considered at low cost in the Springfield Park area. Signs were also discussed to be implemented, especially by the Springfield Park. Playground signs on each side of the park and then also speed advisory signs coming around the curve by the park was also discussed. The curve there is approximately a 25 miles an hour curve so advisory speeds for that curve would be justified or warranted. Other traffic calming measures that were discussed were no parking on one side of the Springfield Drive area by the park. We felt that not everybody in the Springfield area was supportive of that since there ’s a lot of people that drive to the park in the Springfield Drive neighborhood. They kind of like parking in that area. Parking on both sides of the road also too does limit traffic or slows the traffic down. Can be considered a traffic calming measure as well too. Reducing the speed limit, based upon the traffic study that the staff did take, we don ’t think MnDOT and the State of Minnesota would be supportive of lowering the speed limit in this area just based upon the speeds that we have documented. We did talk about extending the sidewalk down to, from Springfield Drive down to Bandimere Park on the west side of Kiowa Trail. We did, I think the neighbors, especially in Kiowa Trail see a safety benefit for extending that sidewalk down since it doesn ’t extend all the way down the entire length of Kiowa Trail down to 101 so that item was tabled. Pedestrian crosswalks were also talked about. Staff is going to be looking at crosswalks at Lyman Boulevard from Springfield Drive to the north to the Reflections development. That might be, might need to put a crosswalk there just because of the park at that location there and there seems to be more pedestrian movements at that location. We also talked about raised medians along Springfield Drive and then also increased police patrols in the area as well. So that ’s basically I think a summary of what was discussed on with traffic calming. If council does decide to direct staff to implement any of these improvements, I think it ’s still would be important for staff to monitor the effectiveness of each of these improvements and make changes as necessary. Monitoring would include you know like traffic counts. Observations. Effectiveness of implementations items and then also police patrols as well. So that ’s a brief summary of our meeting on February 25 th . If there ’s any questions for Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 4 staff at this time be more than happy to try to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff on this aspect? Councilman Laufenburger: I do Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Paul. Just a few questions. There is a stop sign, when you ’re traveling east on Lyman and you make a right turn on Springfield there ’s a stop sign kind of at the bottom of the entrance where the divided is. Is that customary to put a stop sign at that point and can you talk a little bit about that? Paul Oehme: Stop signs should be warranted so there is a methodology or protocol that you have to typically go through for placing stop signs. At that specific location where there ’s a stop sign there, I ’m not sure if it is warranted. It ’s been there since the development was in place is my understanding so we ’re not looking at changing that stop sign at this time but I think coming into the neighborhood with that stop condition it does you know potentially would slow the traffic down as they go through the neighborhood. Councilman Laufenburger: It would certainly indicate, it would remove any question that anybody would have that they ’re entering a residential area. Paul Oehme: Residential area, correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. You spoke about the speed signs but just to clarify if, are there any restrictions for us to put yellow, like 25 miles per hour or whatever they might be like that? Paul Oehme: Yep. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, is there any restriction that the State would have on us from doing that? Paul Oehme: No, these are advisory signs so they ’re typically not enforceable so it ’s, the agencies , at the agency ’s discretion to put these signs in or where they think it ’s warranted. Councilman Laufenburger: And what counsel would they give us regarding the effectiveness of these signs? They meaning MnDOT or public safety division. Paul Oehme: I think it depends upon the situation. Depends upon the severity of the curve and what the situation is like … Councilman Laufenburger: But there ’s certainly no reason why we couldn ’t put them in place? Paul Oehme: Not that I ’m aware of right now. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Let ’s see. You, oh the speed study you conducted. Was that speed study conducted only during the time that the barrier was done and the access to 101 from Kiowa Trail was in place? Paul Oehme: I believe it was. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 5 Councilman Laufenburger: So we don ’t really have a comparison on what the speed of the vehicles was either before or after the barrier was taken down. All we know is the speed when the barrier is down, is that right? Paul Oehme: That ’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And then one last question. There ’s discussion around the 500 vehicles per day. The statement in the staff report says if the connection is opened Springfield Drive trips are estimated to increase to 500 vehicles today and if I recall, wish I could remember his name. Mr. Sohrweide? Paul Oehme: Correct. Sohrweide. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, he talked about that that was a conservative. It was like an average and even the accuracy of that average is difficult to measure because the numbers are so small, is that correct? Am I saying that correct? Paul Oehme: That ’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So if it ’s 300 vehicles per day by the Springfield Park, going in either direction when the barrier ’s in place, and then it goes to 500 vehicles per day, you know again accuracy is in question but one would assume that those 200 vehicles would be made up of both cars traveling northbound from 101 or Kiowa, and also traveling southbound from areas in Springfield and even across Lyman and Reflections or in the North Bay and all of that area, is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. It ’s not potentially cut through traffic that we ’re talking about. It ’s potentially neighborhood traffic generated between the two. Councilman Laufenburger: But it could be cut through traffic. Paul Oehme: But it could be cut through traffic as well, correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Do we have any measure of the exact number of vehicles that went through that area when the barrier was done and the entrance to 101 was closed? The exact number of vehicle count per day. Paul Oehme: For example Kiowa Trail, I think we had, in the staff report we had indicated it was about 200 trips per day. I know those trips going up into Springfield were averaging about 160 trips so just for reference we rounded up again to 200 trips per day for that situation. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so in that situation when the people on Kiowa had no opportunity to exit to 101, that traffic count was roughly 200 vehicles. Or an estimate. Paul Oehme: And estimate of 200 and what we found the traffic per day was about 160. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: But in the staff report and the traffic analysis we rounded it up to 200. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Paul for that clarification. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 6 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions for staff at this point? Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Mr. Mayor, this is more of a question I think for you or our attorney. Just as a formality, is the disposition of the original proposal that Councilman Laufenburger made, is that still as the original motion? And I know we talked about separating the two projects. Mayor Furlong: No, for clarification that will be brought up under unfinished business. We ’re in new business. This is a new item. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Alright. Okay. Mayor Furlong: So even though it was addressed at length. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Mayor Furlong: When that item was talked about so we ’re not discussing his motion at this point. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Mayor Furlong: This is a new item so. Councilwoman Ernst: I just heard it separated and that ’s why I questioned it. Mayor Furlong: Nope, and that ’s fine. No, that ’s good clarification. Any other questions for staff at this point? Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. Oehme, couple questions. Following up first on Mr. Laufenburger ’s comments about traffic count. Typical residential street or residential streets in these neighborhoods, what would be the expected level of, normal expected level of traffic that would still operate a safe condition from an engineering point of view? Paul Oehme: Sure. So normal standards for local residential roadways, it ’s classified up to about 1,000 trips per day through MnDOT and Met Council. That ’s typically their defining level of local trips. Local traffic on residential roads. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. And then one of the items mentioned in the staff report, and this was brought up at our last meeting when the discussion moved towards this item, was the statement in the Comprehensive Plan referring to this barrier between the Kiowa and Springfield roads and also Mr. Gerhardt, you had some information regarding the development contract as well. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Could you speak to that please? Todd Gerhardt: Paul could you bring up your slide. In the slide the chronology that sits over on the sign in table showed that on March 23 rd that the development contract referenced the barricade to be temporary until area residents petition the city to open the connection or when Trunk Highway 212 is constructed, and in the packet it has a variety of different Minutes that led up to that. You almost need a road map to follow it all but it started back in 1993 and was completed back with the second phase of the Springfield development. Mayor Furlong: So the information that ’s in the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the development contract that was approved back in ’98? Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 7 Todd Gerhardt: It ’s almost the exact same language. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Follow up question? Councilman Laufenburger: Just point of clarification. It ’s this, the language that is in the, call it the chronology, that ’s the language that I referenced on January 27 th . Mayor Furlong: I think that ’s right. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah that ’s the, and that ’s the language that I quoted from so it was previously introduced in my comments and now reinforced by the exact language that Mr. Gerhardt is providing. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? Councilwoman Ernst: I ’m sorry. Mayor Furlong: Yes, Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Paul can you tell me when we ’re talking about the circles with the landscaping, is that, can you, do you have any kind of data that really I guess talks to the idea that this really slows traffic and if so how much? Do you have any kind of a, any kind of data on that? Paul Oehme: I think they ’re, for these traffic they ’re , they kind of just relate to existing conditions or what exact parameters are currently out in the field. It ’s going to vary from neighborhood to neighborhood I think in terms of traffic calming or how much traffic is going to be diverted from these areas. Intuitively you know when you ’re slowing traffic down in these type of situations I think if you ’re not in the neighborhood or live in the neighborhood, I think it ’s going to discourage people from going through the neighborhoods I think because it does slow you down. It ’s kind of a nuisance to get around. You ’re going to have to pay attention a little bit more to navigate around these type of improvements so you know I think it ’s a good, good item to consider for this type of application. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Let me follow up on that because at the last meeting we had a discussion about that. I ’m under the impression that again at the boundary between the neighborhoods, that was where we initially talked about a traffic circle and what we came out with was that the concern is further in to the development up around the park and at that point what I believe I heard was, that traffic circle will have no impact on any speed at that point so you know at that time I questioned the utility of why would we just put one traffic circle in. Is that, am I correct that we ’re not really getting a lot of bang for our buck to just put a traffic circle in where the two cul-de-sacs come together? Paul Oehme: You know I think it helps delineate the, between the two neighborhoods. You know if the Kiowa Trail improvements go forward, that roadway is a lot narrower than Springfield is so I think the Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 8 roadway width in Kiowa Trail does help the traffic circle and keep the traffic slow down and calmed in that area and with the curvy roads and the hill in that area as well. As we move off to the Springfield Drive, the park, we are looking for other you know tools in that tool box to look for traffic calming. One is you know we talked about striping that section of roadway next to the park. Try to narrow that roadway lane down as much as you can. Try to give the feeling that the driver ’s enclosed or it ’s a narrow section of roadway so that ’s another tool that we ’re looking at for, to try to slow the traffic down in the Springfield neighborhood. And then also the signage too. You know just making sure that people are aware that there is a park in this area and there ’s an advisory sign. The sign advising the driver that, you know to slow down for the curve that ’s coming ahead too so. Especially if people aren ’t familiar with the neighborhood I think some of these improvements would help mitigate some of these situations of speeding and in the neighborhood. Councilman McDonald: Okay but if I read your report correctly, if you go and do the striping at the areas where we need it you ’re going to have to give up the parking and as I understood there was a strong reluctance against giving up parking around the park so the trade off is, okay we could put a median in. Now you ’ve inconvenienced people who live in the neighborhood who before would have parked on the side of the road there. Paul Oehme: Yeah, so I mean I think the striping can go along with still parking within the neighborhood. You know the striping where we ’re thinking about would not discourage or you know get away from, have people parking in this section of roadway. The through traffic can still go around the park traffic and over some of the striped areas. It ’s just in the times when there ’s no parking out there, I think that ’s where the striping is, you know gets the best bang for the buck where the road is, travel lane is narrower and it helps to slow the traffic down. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor. Paul, you ’ve identified the cost to put in the traffic circle. I think you just, I don ’t want to misquote you. What was the cost to put in a traffic circle? Paul Oehme: About $1,500. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So let ’s say $1,500. Does that mean the cost to remove it if it proves to be ineffective is likewise? Paul Oehme: It would probably be about the same ballpark. If we remove it, it would probably be done by staff. Staff ’s time so and just the cost of pavement. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright, there was one more thing that was brought up by one of the residents and I think it ’s a good idea but it ’s not in the staff report. I don ’t know if it wasn ’t you know sharply communicated but the notion that perhaps a, on Lyman for east and westbound Lyman right at the Springfield Drive entrance put a sign there that says, like westbound Lyman. No left turn into Springfield during hours 7:00 to 9:00 in order to control and restrict the notion of cut through traffic. Has there been any discussion amongst staff about that? Paul Oehme: Staff, we did talk about it a little bit and you know it ’s something we can consider. I don ’t think it ’s high on the staff ’s list of things that we want to look at at this time. I think it ’s another tool in the tool box. Maybe down the road we could look at that. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 9 Councilman Laufenburger: From a public safety standpoint is that enforceable? If there was a sign. Paul Oehme: Right and that ’s the problem I think too. To enforce a no left turn into a certain neighborhood, you almost have to park a police car out there during a lot of those, that time so I think it ’s from an operational standpoint or a, you know enforcement standpoint it ’s going to be very difficult at times to make that work. Councilman Laufenburger: And I do remember the discussion, if I remember it correctly, that a sign like that may even draw attention to something that ooh, they don ’t want us to cut through here. It must be a good idea. Okay. Alright, thanks Paul. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? If not then, as I mentioned even though we had extensive public hearing at the last meeting, or excuse me our meeting on the 27 th . Much of it related to this. We ’d certainly be open to public comment for those who wish to speak. We ’ll take 15 minutes or so for the public comment. Clearly there was a meeting with staff and residents on the 5 th and so we ’d appreciate comments on that meeting. Also overall I mean we ’ve had the, all of us were here for the public hearing. We ’ve had the Minutes of that meeting. We ’ve received the emails and such so as much as there ’s new information that you ’d like to share with us, that ’s what we ’re mostly interested in and certainly would give preference to those who didn ’t speak at the last public hearing. Allow them to speak first but at this point we ’d be open for public comment. Anybody wishing to speak. Good evening. Erika Messmer: Good evening. Thank you Mayor and City Council members. My name is Erika Messmer. I ’m a Springfield resident at 9140 Sunnyvale Drive. I ’m here on behalf of the Springfield Homeowner ’s Association board. On February 14 th the Springfield Homeowner ’s Board issued a letter to the City expressing our position that we request the barrier between Springfield and the Kiowa neighborhoods remain in place. I ’m here today to reiterate the primary intent of our letter which was the concern of the safety of our residents and the unequivocal support to keep the road barrier in place. We were asking the staff to recommend that the barrier be maintained. Although we appreciate the City taking the time to assess other options if the barrier were to be removed, we do not feel the options presented are a comprehensive solution to the increased safety risks that would be created if the barrier were not in place any longer. The options presented such as signage and road striping are primarily reactive while the barrier has served as a proactive solution for a number of years. As a member of the homeowner ’s association we feel the safety of our family, friends and neighbors is a first priority and leaving the barrier in place is the only way to insure this concern is addressed appropriately. As taxpayers of the City of Chanhassen we also feel it ’s the most fiscally responsible option to move forward. Now that the barrier removal as it ’s own vote, we feel voting to leave it in place would overall not be a significant change to the city development and would relieve the safety concerns of an overwhelming majority of our neighborhoods. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Mayor Furlong: You ’re welcome. Thank you. Pam Morley: My name is Pam Morley and I live at 9143 Springfield Drive and I apologize and I really wasn ’t planning on speaking today but will now. I ’ve been moved to. This is the fourth meeting I ’ve attended regarding the Springfield barrier and I live almost directly apart from the pool. Across from the pool. One area of concern I have is I don ’t think that anyone here has been down in the Springfield pool area during the summer when they have actually seen all the kids out playing. All the people at the pool. All the people you know enjoying the outside. I typically drive between 7 and 10 miles per hour when I drive through that area because I know it is such a risk and that is the speed I ’ve instructed my teenage daughter to drive as well. And the speed which I ’ve told other people who have teenagers that they should be expected to drive. My kids know, we know about the concerns. We know about the dangers that could exist in this area and a lot of people who will be using it as a cut through do not know of these Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 10 concerns. A motor vehicle versus a child accident would have catastrophic events. When I was a child, when I was growing up, my next door neighbor actually ran over another neighbor ’s kid. A busy street going onto a dead end road and my neighbor killed the boy that lived on the corner. It was terrible for the entire neighborhood. Both families lived there for a couple years longer but my neighbor ’s house was egged. Their business was boycotted and they eventually moved away. It destroyed everybody so why would we have a solution that works. Granted something catastrophic can always happen but we have something that works. Why dramatically increase the risks of having someone be seriously injured or killed? I work as a ICU tele nurse at Abbott-Northwest Hospital. I see directly people who find out when they get to the hospital their loved one is dead. I work with that every day. I just can ’t understand why we would take a solution that works. Doesn ’t make everything okay but makes things a lot safer just for the neighborhood. I don ’t care about keeping Springfield private. I don ’t want to live in a gated community. I don ’t want to keep people out. I just want to keep our neighborhood safe. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. If we could please restrain from applause I ’d appreciate it. Thank you. Please. Curt Kobilarcsik: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Curt Kobilarcsik, 9149 Springfield Drive. There ’s a couple things I ’d like to touch on. One is a piece of new information. I think it ’s been mentioned previously this evening. It ’s the Minutes from the December 13, 1993 City Council meeting. There was an item on the final plat approval for the Springfield development. I think what I ’d like to do is just briefly go through the Minutes just to get a flavor of that meeting and just how this decision was made originally so I ’m just going to go through and just do a few of the comments that were made at that meeting. So for instance one of the council members brings up you know what happened on the issue of that street cut through, so the terminology was back then as well and those council members noticed and acknowledged that there was a cut through and several of these have used the term cut through in their discussion here so. He asked what happened on the issue of that street cut through. I heard from a number of neighbors down there that were opposed to the cut through so that was an item from a council member. An item from a city staff was, you know Kiowa ’s kind of a shortcut to get down to Pioneer and we went back and forth about it and said they ’re probably right so we said we agree and at least the Planning Commission find it so that the issue should come back up when 212 is completed. Then he mentions you know I don ’t recall that the Planning Commission actually took action on that denial of the plat and city staff mentions the only motion to approve has the cul-de-sac going down Kiowa instead of being automatically reverted to open up after 212. A next comment of interest is from a resident. One of the problems that was brought out at the last, at the Planning Commission meeting was the fact that at the time they were planning on extending down through Kiowa Trail. It mentions that people from the new development on the west side of the lake, and also Lakeview apartments would be cruising down through this development and going down Kiowa Trail so very clear that there were several concerns back then. A note from the developer, or from the property owner saying the only opposition I ’ve heard is to the through streets. Another council member, you know so that ’s not the only issue here as far as I ’m concerned. The Kiowa Trail thing, since I ’ve been on council, if people haven ’t wanted a road to go through there, I think we figured out a way not to put that road through or to put up a barricade. Another council member later on in the discussion says, I agree that there should be no Kiowa access. I can see people tearing up Highway 101 and cutting through. After that the mayor says I ’ve got to just ditto what that previous council member said so I ’ve just got to ditto what the council member said because that was most of my comments that she said so. Another council member comes up with back to back cul-de-sacs. I don ’t like them. This back to back thing with these barriers. I think that ’s an eyesore and atrocious. Either connect it or don ’t. If we ’re not gonna, I ’d just leave the cul-de-sac as is and put a cul-de-sac in accordingly. So what I ’m seeing there is that they were going to vote on that that night. At least 3 out of the 5 council members were going to say do not connect Kiowa to Springfield and possibly 4 council members back at that point in time in the evening that this was decided back in 1993. Then there was a Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 11 motion to approve the preliminary PUD and the preliminary plat approval as well. This was approved subject to the following conditions. Condition number 19 is, this kind of goes to Councilmember Laufenburger ’s point at the last council meeting about this being temporary until construction is done and then removed. This is the point number 19 here. During the construction of each phase temporary turn around ’s shall be provided on all dead-end streets which are proposed to be extended. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary turn around ’s with a sign indicating that this street shall be extended in the future. So that ’s a correct statement. I mean but this was for all streets impacted by the project. They should all have, this is a construction note here that you know they should all have this barricade in until construction is completed. But another one of the stipulations is stipulation number 30 that overrides this in construction stipulation here. Stipulation 30. Back to back cul-de-sacs shall be provided at the Kiowa Trail connection. The pavement for the northern cul-de-sac shall be installed to the project property line. A break away barricade shall be installed to prohibit through traffic on Kiowa Trail. The cul-de-sacs shall be temporary until either area residents petition the City to open the connection or Highway 212 is constructed at which time traffic patterns will be changed. So item 30 provides a more permanent solution so I just wanted to respond to what I had found in relation to Mr. Laufenburger ’s, or Councilman Laufenburger ’s comment at the last, at the last City Council meeting. My next item is, it ’s kin d of a point of clarification or from the last City Council meeting. At that meeting it got a little bit confusing as far as kind of the focus of some of the larger issues of reasons for leaving the barrier in place and I think it got a little bit confusing as far as when we would mention safety. I think some folks thought maybe it was safety with, like a criminal type safety but it ’s actually a traffic safety type safety so I wanted to just review with you quickly an email I have sent to the council and to staff. I sent it originally on February 4 th and then I re-sent it on February 18 th as well and these were the reasons for leaving the barrier in place so number one, traffic volumes. If the barrier ’s removed an additional 400 plus households, which the existing 53 households could potentially use Kiowa Trail and Springfield Drive. The City study indicated an increase from 200 vehicles per day to 500 vehicles per day. It will likely be more. The second item, traffic speeds. As witnessed last summer by neighbors traffic speeds increased with the opening of the barrier. The 85 th percentile speed of 28.4 miles per hour is concerning for this type of residential street. With the curvature and so many residences along the route. This is not safe especially with the neighborhood park and swimming pool along the route. Third item. Traffic safety. The Kiowa/Springfield shortcut contains a large number of residential driveways. 43 driveways along that route. Residential street, high density. It ’s a significant amount of conflicts that we are introducing for each additional traffic that goes along that roadway. If you vote for the barrier to be removed you ’re making this residential street less safe for 43 families. Creates cut through traffic. This has been discussed in the past but I just want to reiterate it. The Kiowa/Springfield shortcut ’s a shorter distance by .4 miles plus less time by 90 seconds. That equals cut through traffic. If you look at a map of the area it is very apparent that this route will be used for cut through. The City Comprehensive Plan states that residential street systems should be designed to discourage cut through traffic through neighborhoods. If you vote for the removal of the barrier you ’re promoting cut through traffic. Not discouraging it. Residential street connections. I agree with residential street connections but not in this particular instance with, in this case the opening of the barrier creating a shortcut from a busy county highway to an area of high density development. This is a unique situation in our community. At the neighborhood meeting Mr. Gerhardt had brought up some examples in the city of similar type situations but we really couldn ’t find a similar situation to what we have as far as the barricades. Resident input. You know the impacted neighborhoods, Kiowa and Springfield quote, benefiting from the removal of the barrier have voted against the removal of the barrier by a vote of 140 to 1. The residents have spoken and the residents are concerned about the safety of our street. The third item that I have just briefly. Mayor Furlong: Very briefly please. I want to make sure everybody gets a chance to talk within the timeframe that we ’re. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 12 Curt Kobilarcsik: Okay. Yep. This was in response to the neighborhood meeting that we had that Paul and Mr. Gerhardt had led and just a response to that. I think if you do several of these different things I think, like add striping on Springfield Drive to slow down traffic. You know I can ’t envision striping on this neighborhood street. It would seem out of place and bring extra attention to this issue so I ’d prefer the city to use striping as a means of, would not prefer the city use striping as a means of controlling traffic speeds. Rumble strips were mentioned. These would be too loud for the neighbors. Speed bumps. Discussed but the city does not believe this to be an option. Traffic circles and roundabout ’s …traffic circles is not a global solution for this situation. Traffic circles are not the solution for this neighborhood. Additional signing. I think it ’s wrong to have the safety of our neighborhood street need to be controlled by signage and police officers to enforce the signs. I ’m concerned about that. So I appreciate the council directing staff to study potential options. I think staff did a great job but I think it ’s a very complicated area that we have there so. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Curt Kobilarcsik: With that thank you for your time and look forward to hearing your comments. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Curt Kobilarcsik: Alright. Jamie Heilicher: I ’ll make this fairly quick. Jamie Heilicher. 9280 Kiowa Trail. I ’ve got two short comments. One, I think it ’s interesting that the barrier was really put in place for the only benefit. The only people that will really benefit from using that cut through will be the residents of Springfield. They benefit the most. That gives them the shortest shortcut through Kiowa Trail to 101 south and it ’s interesting that they unanimously are opposed that cut through. People from Reflections and up north of that, you know that ’s a true cut through that they shouldn ’t be allowed to do but the people that benefit the most would be the people from Springfield cutting through Kiowa. There ’s no reason for Kiowa residents to move north through Springfield. Only Springfield residents to move through Kiowa to get to 101 and it ’s interesting that they ’re not petitioning to open this barrier up as the prior council had suggested that somebody would be petitioning to open it up as opposed to petitioning to keep it closed. The second is more of a personal nature. I walk Kiowa Trail on a regular basis with my dog and I ’ve gotten to know my neighbors very well on Kiowa Trail and I plan to continue to walk down Kiowa Trail and visit my neighbors that are playing out front and on their barbeques and so forth. My biggest concern is that as traffic increases my comfort level of walking on Kiowa Trail may diminish. Now I ’m going to walk on Kiowa Trail anyways but at some point I may find myself so uncomfortable with this added 300 cars that I ’m being told are going to be you know moving up and down Kiowa Trail and I ’m going to find myself no longer walking up Kiowa Trail. Walking only into the park where it ’s safer and losing connection with a neighborhood that I ’m very fond of that I ’ve been there for 28 years and the way I ’ve gotten to know my neighbors is walking by and stopping and talking. Not by driving by so I truly hope that all of you understand that this is not a benefit to our community to bring the barrier down and it will change our neighborhood to the negative. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Fred Souza: My name is Fred Souza, 9150 Springfield Drive. First I just want to thank Todd, our city manager for listening to what the neighborhood had to say about trying to separate this into two components and the neighborhood respects and appreciates that. I ’m going to be extremely brief. We talked a lot about calming for traffic issues and to my point is that line st riping, as the 17 year old high school student at the city meeting enlightened us all that when the road is covered with snow that kind of limits the options for effectiveness. And again this isn ’t necessarily about the c alming traffic. It ’s not Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 13 about trying to create a private community. It ’s about the safety of the neighborhood. You know there ’s been suggestions. It was unfortunate, fortunately or unfortunately how you look at it, there was a plethora of email traffic today. Some comments were being sent back that there were residents that support the barrier coming down. From my perspective on the Springfield side, an overwhelming majority, 80% of the neighborhood wants the partition down. The 20% that didn ’t respond, didn ’t respond to phone calls, emails, knocks on the door so the majority of the neighborhood wants it out. Wants the barrier to remain. 100% of the residents on Springfield Drive want the barrier to stay. I would welcome if anybody is here that would support removing the barrier from a resident perspective to please to let that be heard. I just think that there ’s an overwhelming. I don ’t think, I know. An overwhelming majority of the residents that are impacted the most, and this isn ’t about we don ’t want people driving down our streets as was kind of painted in the last council meeting. That ’s absolutely not accurate. We want anyone in the city of Chanhassen, anyone in the state of Mass, Minnesota . Mayor Furlong: You did it tonight. Fred Souza: I was in Boston this weekend looking for road calming episodes. We don ’t want to make it look like we ’re trying to be elitist and not open the neighborhood. That ’s not true. Again I ’m going to ask, for those City Council members that were supporting us at the last meeting, I encourage and would appreciate that support again. For the two city councilors and the mayor that I believe were maybe on the fence, I implore you to listen to the city. The residents of Chanhassen and Kiowa Trail and support us and don ’t, don ’t change something that ’s working fine. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Matt Mason: Hi everybody. Matt Mason, 9198 Springfield. I ’m the frustrated, confused, mad as hell guy from email today. Just two quick comments. Going through this, I ’ve heard the plan brought up a lot. I ’ve seen the plan on these monitors and when we talk about the plan, there are two things that are in there, right? Everyone mentions hey, it ’s supposed to come out. It says it ’s supposed to come out when the highway came down or was finished and I never understood the connection there. I ’ve never heard anyone here tell us what the connection is. But I think when we mentioned that, that you know hey it ’s supposed to come down. It also clearly states in there it was supposed to discourage cut through so I would think that when you talk about one you ’ve got to talk about the other at the same time. And then once the public portion of this closed, I would just love to hear each and every one of you that has a vote, give us your opinion on the safest solution for our neighborhood. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, anyone else on this item? Okay, thank you. With that, unless there ’s any objection we ’ll close the public comment and bring it back to council for additional questions or comments. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I ’ve given this a lot of thought and there was a lot of things said at the last meeting that I have followed up on and the last gentleman that was up here, your emails did intrigue me somewhat. I did check into it. There ’s a part of all of this, and again what amazed me is, this started in November of 1993 and it took until July of 1998. Almost 5 years to come to the plan that they had which stipulated the completion of 212 or if the neighborhood wanted to petition. What ’s missing in all of that, and one of the gentleman brought it up, it was the Lakeview Apartments. I lived here back then and I kind of forgot about all of that. I also forgot about what 101 used to look like and at the time the Lakeview Apartments were a big problem and that was the best route to get down to Pioneer and to 212. 212 was to the south of you. Now it ’s to the north of you and because of the type of traffic that was coming through there, that was why this was so difficult a decision to reach by council. The residents. I mean this goes back to a fight over Springfield ’s plat. There was a whole thing there about you know are we going to allow this or what restrictions do we put on this. There was a lot of discussion Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 14 over a 5 year period on this whole issue and the compromise that was reached again centered around 212. It talks about new traffic patterns. What was envisioned was again 212 would create a new traffic pattern. Also 101 being fixed would create a new traffic pattern. Lyman Boulevard. All of these things were in the works to be changed. What has happened since then is that we have fixed Lyman to some extent. We fixed 101. We ’re improving it even more as we speak but the whole thing is the circumstances that existed back then, when you talk about cut through, that ’s what they were talking about were those apartments. Not the cut through that you talk about today . It was a different type of cut through and it was almost a coded message for the types of traffic that would be coming through the neighborhoods and it was great concern about that. Great concern. And I ’d forgotten all about that because you know when those apartments were torn down and everything kind of changed, it changed the whole landscape of the area and of the neighborhood and it really kind of quiten the whole area so when we talk about cut through, that ’s what we were doing. What was to try to keep that neighborhood from becoming a through route down to Pioneer Trail which at that point was more of a major highway than it is today and also it got you down the hill to 212 which at that point was also the major road going back and forth. That would be the easiest way to get into the Twin Cities back in those days. So I look at all of this. I re-read the meeting minutes. Part of what I was looking for was again, is there another compelling reason that has not been brought up. You have brought up every reason that was in this discussion for 5 years and it is not new issues. We deal with it on every road, every street within this city. People come to us constantly worried about safety of their roads and I ’ve checked on this. There have been no children injured. There have been no accidents. Most of the problems we have with speeding are usually teenage drivers who live in the neighborhood. It is not outsiders that come into these neighborhoods and go speeding through them and causing a great safety concerns. Cities learn how to deal with those things. You know if there are problems we do put extra patrols in place and pretty soon people get the message that yeah, you ’d better watc h your speed going through here so we ’re very protective of all the neighborhoods. We ’ve addressed all the other issues. The whole thing about traffic and the increase in traffic, I mean truthfully we don ’t have a good handle on that and we don ’t have a good handle on it because it ’s such a small number that all they ’re doing is guessing. It is not unlike again, I ’ve heard these same numbers on all other roads. You talk about you being unique. Longacres is fairly close to your situation. Between 41 and coming over to Century Boulevard. There was a lot of concern at that point that that was going to become the shortcut to get into town because when you draw the lines out and stuff, that was the shorter way to get over to town and also to some of the other developments. Hadn ’t panned out. There is not that big increase and bump in traffic that we were told was going to happen there. Mos t people driving back and forth, they don ’t want to go through your neighborhoods anyway. You ’re right, you ’ve got to slow down. There ’s a lot of risk. There ’s kids. Everybody knows that lives in this community or most of the people that visit the community know that there ’s kids in these neighborhoods and most of these people have got children. You bring up the accident. That was a tragic accident and I can understand where everybody would be very affected by that. That just hasn ’t happened here so I have not heard the compelling reason why your situation is different from any others. We have made, again this whole policy of the interconnection and neighborhoods. That ’s in the comp plan. That was discussed. It was talked about. It was agreed that for a city wide objective that ’s what we should be doing is opening up neighborhoods. Allowing people the free movement of people back and forth between areas. It will benefit the schools. They won ’t have to do a bus that goes up and around. They can redo routes. They ’ve actually been in here before, talked about other neighborhoods. About the benefit of geez, if you would just connect here or take this down we could save a mile or so as far as the school bus routes. You also talked about delivery people. Well they ’re coming into your neighborhood because they ’ve got packages for you. I mean that ’s a convenience so that you can get something and it ’s the City ’s job to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place so that those things can take place so that ’s all we ’re doing and that ’s what the policy is all about is fine, we will make it easy for people to come into our community. Conduct business. Provide services to our residents and to do that. We ’re not up here to harm your children. Believe me we hear that a lot. When the apartments came through we were told we were going to kill children then too. It doesn ’t happen. There is not a person up here that would put your Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 15 child at risk. I have 4 children. I understand what you ’re talking about. It just, history does not bare out some of these fears and again going back and looking at this, taking 5 years to reach this conclusion and the whole reason why was because again we didn ’t want to create a cut through for the apartments down to Pioneer, down to 212. That was the reason for it. Those circumstances no longer exist so I think what ’s happened is again the time has come to you know take this barrier down. Everyone ’s been on notice since 1998 when the agreement was reached that it was going to happen and the only thing that we were waiting for was 212, 101. Those roads. Those traffic patterns needed to be improved or you could come before and say hey, we want the barrier taken down. 212 arrived. It is now time I think to go forward with the contract and the agreement as it was and what I can tell you is that tonight I would be in favor of taking the barrier down. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Other comments? Discussion. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Sure, thank you Mr. Mayor. I have prepared some comments ahead of time and it ’s really for my benefit. Not because I reached a conclusion a long time ago. I just, my desire is to speak clearly and to speak the words that have been ruminating in my head for at least I don ’t know, 2-3 months. Trying to figure out exactly what to say. So I ’ve listened carefully to your words tonight and in previous council meetings. I ’ve carefully read your emails, the petitions. I ’ve listened to your arguments. Your passion and I ’ve learned from all of you. As a result I ’ve changed my mind about the presentation of this issue at council level. I now agree that it is appropriate to separate the disposition of the barrier from the decision on the street improvements for Kiowa Trail. Now I ’m not certain about this next thing but I sense that, I just have this feeling that unless I convey agreement with you about leaving the barrier in place, that you prefer not to hear what I have to say. But even so I have a public duty to share what I believe to be true so here ’s what I believe to be true. The barrier was originally put in place by the Mancino council in 1998 as a temporary, as temporary but not for purposes of long term public safety. Not to reduce cut through traffic but for the purpose of prohibiting construction related traffic from entering the development site by way of either 101 or Kiowa Trail. Number two. I believe that the ambiguity of the language regarding the circumstances as to when the barrier was to be removed and what I will characterize as delinquency and lack of directed follow through by city leaders, this has contributed to the confrontational situation that we ’re in right now. And frankly to the extent that I am able or am allowed to, I ’m committed to prevent this situation from arising in the future anywhere else in the city. Including the existing barriers or separations that exist on city streets today and I ’ve looked at every one of them including the Kiowa/Springfield trail barrier at least a dozen times in the last 3 months. Thirdly. I believe that both neighborhoods have grown to consider the community experience that resulted from the barrier ’s presence as worthwhile, valuable and expected to continue into perpetuity though that was not the original intent. I believe that the citizens of Springfield yes, observed a substantial change in traffic patterns on their streets when the barrier was taken down last year. I get that and I understand why that makes you so concerned but I also believe that the traffic patterns that you witnessed at that time are not a valid predictor of what traffic will be in the future if and when the residents on Kiowa Trail, like Mr. Heilicher, when they have two options to exit their neighborhood. Both 101 and Springfield Drive. I believe that the traffic will increase as a result of a perceived shorter route to travel south on 101 or north from 101 to Lyman. On spring to Lyman. But from my own experience, when I have driven on Springfield Drive over the last 8 months there are so many elements that would make the road less attractive than Lyman and 101, including the stop sign just 100 feet from the entrance on Springfield. How many come to a full stop when they enter the neighborhood? The current narrow road resulting from snowfalls. The curves in the road. All of those would make 101 and Lyman a much more attractive route. I believe that both neighborhoods, Kiowa and Springfield have exercised meaningful diligence, vigilance and neighborhood spirit to maintain a safe and friendly environment for yourselves and for the visitors to the neighborhood. I also believe that that same community spirit will continue uninterrupted and undiminished as a result of any council action tonight. I believe both these neighborhoods will do the best that they can to keep their communities vibrant, friendly and safe long after all of us are gone. Lastly Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 16 I believe there is much to be learned from this experience, both on the part of the council and on the part of the community. For me personally I ’ve learned from, and though you may not agree with this, I have really appreciated all of the dialogue that I ’ve had with each and every one of you and with some of you repeated over and over and over. I know that we may not agree. However I can tell you that your questions, your comments, they challenged me to think more deeply about this than I had ever anticipated before. My only regret, and I ’m not sure it ’s a regret but the only thing that I could regret from all of this is that there is a possibility that some of you may look on this council through the filter of this one decision but I assure you there is so much more to your elected officials than this single vote. We are your neighbors. We are advocates for the environment. For your children. For the opportunity to raise your kids in a well planned community so please don ’t let the outcome of this issue diminish your love for or your investment in this community. Use it as a stepping stone to be further involved in all aspects of a community. Service to Chanhassen. Schools. Community festivals. Civic organizations. Volunteer groups. City commissions and so much more. Frankly this community needs you. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Laufenburger. Other thoughts or comments? Councilwoman Ernst: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Well I promise I won ’t be as long as Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Who was counting? Councilwoman Ernst: And actually I have to say that Councilman McDonald and Councilman Laufenburger have really stated it very clearly so I ’m not going to repeat some of the things that have already been said and some of the things that were said in the previous meeting. But you know I want, first off I want to say two things that I ’m really disappointed in and the first thing is that you know the mayor politely asked all of you to hold your applause and I was really disappointed to see that you couldn ’t respect that simple little request. But number two in regards to the project. I ’m disappointed too that there was no compromise with any of the options that staff presented. I know that they worked very hard and diligent in order to really address your concerns with some of these options that they presented so I was disappointed in that and once again you know I need to look out for the best interest for the city of Chanhassen and it ’s policies and it ’s consistencies and so I would definitely support the removal of the barrier. Having said these things, I appreciate your efforts in being organized and your efforts in really coming forth and expressing your opinions and your concerns and that ’s really what the city is all about is really hearing what you have to say and unfortunately we ’re not always going to agree but hopefully it is the best overall decision for the city and I think that that ’s what we ’re all basing our decision on here tonight is what is the best decision for the city of Chanhassen. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom, do you have some? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. Yep. Two Monday nights ago we sat here and it was like 11:00 at night or midnight I ’m sorry and we were all very tired and drained and emotionally kind of high. We were you know, you guys had drawn a line in the sand and I think you know council was kind of trying to figure out if that line could be moved at all. It could be erased. What was the best solution to this and so we as a council decided to table it and I think as a neighborhood you agreed with that. That that was the right decision and so I left that night thinking and hoping and praying that your neighborhood would be able to figure it out with our city staff so you would really be able to control what was happening and when I found out or I heard the repercussions of the me eting it ’s kind of like that line is still there. City Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 17 hasn ’t moved. Neighborhood hasn ’t moved and so then it was brought back to council once again to try to decipher what was the most reasonable solution to this issue. …council member, this is my third term and this is not my first neighborhood dilemma when it comes to barricades. Longacres, my first term as a council member I think probably my first, third or fourth meeting into it, you know that was the biggest thing. A barricade and the new development and it was going to be a terrible, terrible dilemma that you know UPS trucks were going to be running over children and so you know I walked it and another council member and I kind of fought our way through it and we ended up having the longest cul-de-sac in the city. Was that the best solution to that problem? Right now as I look back to it, I ’m not sure because in the next meetings that came and the next barricades that came down, everyone had your same fear. They obviously did. I would probably have your same fear if I was you know living in a house and there was a barricade right there and all of a sudden that ’s coming down and I don ’t know. I don ’t know. I can ’t foresee the future. I don ’t know who ’s going to be driving past my house and if they have the same love, care and respect for my family and my neighbors as I do. What I can tell you is that those fears I think hopefully in time will subside because you will see that the cut through traffic, and we all say that we ’ve driven through your neighborhood and we all have. I ’ve driven through it too. I think I got lost twice just because it is so windy. I mean it really is not convenient for anybody to say I ’m going to hurry up and beat the traffic light or not have to stop at the stop sign and cut through your neighborhood. I honestly do not think that is really going to happen so I think your biggest problem is going to be your own neighbors and yourselves. You know will Springfield respect Kiowa ’s street and will Kiowa respect Springfield ’s streets? And of course you will because you have that community and you understand who lives in that community. So I too will be supporting taking the barricade down but I really would like to see a traffic circle. I really, really would. I don ’t want to see speed bumps. I don ’t think you know rumble strips are the solution but I honestly do think that a traffic circle, it ’s $1,500. I think it ’s something that ’s worth a try. If it doesn ’t work it doesn ’t work but at least it ’s a start in a direction and if you really do see that there is traffic and it is a big problem, then you need to let City Hall know and that deputy right there will be in your neighborhood watching that traffic. You know you ’re not alone in this and so if there are problems, let us know. You know if we ’re wrong I ’ll be the first one to say you guys were right. Let ’s put that stupid thing back up again but let ’s just at least try to see what happens and let ’s try to work together and as Councilmember Laufenburger said, we ’re still a community and I hope that you don ’t just see this, this movement tonight or this motion tonight as something that ’s reflective of this whole council because I know each and one of these council members and they do care and they do not want anything to happen to your neighborhood. Your neighborhood is our neighborhood and so I really do thank you though for all your emails. I do. It meant, it really does. If don ’t think something we don ’t know and so I thank you for that participation. I really do. I ’m not just saying that and so I do, I am confident that with time this will be alright. The pool situation I do agree. That something should be done with that you know because we ’re driving along, the person that was driving me along went well where is the pool even? You know it ’s kind of tucked back so you can ’t see it and so if you can ’t see it you don ’t know you ’re supposed to really slow down so I think some extra signage would be a good idea there even if you can ’t, you know there ’s like a center line striping. You can see it in the summer. I think that ’s when you would see it the most. That ’s when the snow is gone and the pool is open but you know those are some solutions that I still think can be on the table if they really are deemed necessary so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess my thoughts and comments. Generally will mirror what has already been said so I …so I probably won ’t repeat those. I think the issue was, and apologize if I mess up the name but Curt. Mr. Kobilarcsik. Thank you. I hope I got it at least close. Thank you and I apologize. You know your comments when you talk through the intention of the council and I think Mr. McDonald talked about the length of time that this, the Springfield neighborhood development was being considered by council. Over 5 years. Multiple council members and I think even there you said at the time that the PUD was approved, the prelim inary PUD with the condition 30 that you mentioned points out superseding or overriding I think was your inclination of the other comments but that it was supposed to Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 18 be temporary. That that was the balance at that time that the council sought and achieved with the residents in Kiowa, since there were no Springfield residents at that point in time. You know and that was the intention. That the barrier should be temporary. Temporary has lasted a long, long time and I think that ’s part of the issue here is how long it took for the conditions to be met once 212 was completed. The purpose for that as I understand it was some other, other information that staff provided that was generated at the time is that traffic patterns would change and indeed before existing 212 was built the east/west connections or roads were Highway 5, Pioneer Trail and old 212. County 61 right now and the traffic patterns moved in that area moved towards Pioneer Trail. Moved towards old 212 primarily. That has changed. You know a variety of comments came up, the Comprehensive Plan talks about discouraging cut through traffic and I agree with that but it doesn ’t talk about preventing it. It doesn ’t talk about eliminating any possibility of it occurring and in the very next phrase of that same sentence, when it ’s talking about traffic in one sense, it also talks about connecting neighborhoods with traffic and so I think it ’s, I agree with those statements. Do we discourage it in areas? Yes we do. Do we prevent it? Eliminate any possibility from occurring? That ’s not reasonable and practical because if that was the case we ’d have barriers such as this across our city everywhere. That ’s not the way the city ’s developed and I personally don ’t think that that ’s good public policy to do it that way. As I heard the other council members say, I ’ve read all the emails. I ’ve listened to the comments. I understand the issues for safety. I get it. I understand it and it has caused me to think and rethink about this issue and about the policy and is it the right public policy or not. And is that good public policy to apply in this situation, and I think the best objective information we have are the speed studies that were done at the time that the Kiowa neighborhood could only drive through Springfield neighborhood and we saw average speeds there of less than 25 miles an hour. Most neighborhoods would like that from a speed standpoint. The current and estimated traffic counts are well below the standard for safe conditions for residential street so I think from an objective standpoint, even without the barrier there, will it be different? Could there be more vehicles? Yes. Is it going to create unsafe conditions? In my opinion no. I simply, as Mr. McDonald said, haven ’t heard a compelling reason not to follow through with the terms of the original PUD or the development contract or not follow the Comprehensive Plan in order to keep the barrier in place. To Councilwoman Tjornhom ’s comment about the traffic circle. Perhaps. My thought is, since the emails that we received, that I received, those that talked about the options basically said don ’t do any of them. Even tonight we heard the residents don ’t do them. Might they work? Perhaps. My preference would be, and it sounds like the council will support the barrier coming down. Next item we ’re going to discuss are the Kiowa improvements. At this point let ’s keep the traffic calming measures on the shelf and let ’s see and let ’s watch. We have neighborhoods across the city that Mr. Oehme and his staff work with and monitor traffic and I think if there are things that we can use, I ’d rather use a rifle to address specific things at the time that they ’re occurring rather than try to go with the shotgun approach so my preference would be at this point to not move forward with any of the traffic calming devices in large part because of comments made by residents in their emails and again here this evening. That they didn ’t see the benefit of those at this point and you know I kind of wrote down some of the options and it was don ’t do that. Don ’t do that. Don ’t do that so my preference would be at this point keeping it clean. Let ’s just, if the council wants to move forward to take the barrier down let ’s do that but not do any of the traffic calming effects in the Springfield neighborhood or authoriz e any of those. I think it, was it Ms. Messmer that spoke on behalf of the association? Maybe I messed up your name there too and I apologize. I think you made the comment that you don ’t agree with some of those and so I think you know in that case I would follow what the residents would request. To not move forward with those at this time and monitor it. If we find specific issues that need to be addressed, then we can look at issues and we ’ll address those so. Those are my thoughts and comments. I think at this point I would certainly entertain a motion. If there ’s one. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: There ’s one recommended in the staff report. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 19 Councilman McDonald: I would propose that the City Council authorizes removal of the barricade between Springfield Drive and Kiowa Trail. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion ’s been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: I don ’t choose to make an amendment at this time but I think I would like to get agreement from the council that it ’s appropriate for us to direct the staff to come back to us at that point in time in the future with recommendations as to what traffic calming techniques that are shown to be effective and agreeable to the residents of the neighborhood, and the reason I say that is that I firmly believe that if the residents are given an opportunity to look at options when in fact the barrier is down, I think they would, they may be more open to considering what some of those traffic calming techniques might be so I ’m perfectly comfortable with a motion that takes the barrier down but I think we should direct staff, we should have on record that this council wants staff to work with the neighborhood to develop recommendations that come back to the council. My only point. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts or comments on that. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: How do you do that? I mean do you want us to individually say we would support that? That ’s not really a motion. Councilman Laufenburger: If you ’d like me to make it as an amendment I ’d be happy to do that. Mayor Furlong: I guess my question would be, is that anything different than what staff would currently do now in any neighborhood? I mean I see Mr. Gerhardt say no and Mr. Oehme I mean if, if neighborhoods, and often we get requests from neighborhoods on speeding. You know all sorts of traffic related and they address it and I ’d have no problem listening to any recommendations from the neighborhood or staff but I don ’t know that it ’s anything, what you ’re suggesting is anything different than we do for any neighborhood. Councilman Laufenburger: Right. My only point is that the umbrella that you put over the neighborhood ’s resistance to any traffic calming techniques was they firmly want the barrier to remain in place. If and when the action is that the barrier comes down, they may be more proactive in considering more effectively calming techniques. I just wanted that on the record. No need to direct staff. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? If not a motion ’s been made and seconded. If there ’s no other discussion we ’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council authorizes removal of the barricade between Springfield Drive and Kiowa Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 20 Mayor Furlong: That motion does prevail 5-0. Thank you everyone. Next item on our agenda is the 2014 street improvement projects. 2014 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: A.KIOWA TRAIL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PROJECT, ACCEPTING THE REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS; AND APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. B.MINNEWASHTA SHORES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Mayor Furlong: This is actually bringing back a motion that we had I think proposed by Mr. Laufenburger or made by Mr. Laufenburger and seconded by Councilwoman Ernst if I ’m not mistaken at our last meeting so that, what we ’re doing is bringing this motion back from the table as it was tabled and as directed to come to this meeting. The motion, just to repeat it at that time, Councilman Laufenburger stated I move the Chanhassen City Council approve a resolution ordering improvements for the 2014 street reconstruction Kiowa Trail Area Project #14-01 as stipulated in the staff report. And that was seconded. So that motion is now back before the council. There has been, I guess there ’s been some additional information gathered by the council. It was tabled. We talked a bunch, most about that issue at our previous item which has now been settled so at this point I think two things. For purposes of our discussion, I think it would be one, appropriate to consider an amendment to the motion that ’s before us and this is Mr. Laufenburger ’s motion from January 27 th to remove all references to the barrier from the motion. From the project relating to Kiowa would be the first part. And second part I think an amendment to incorporate the recommended motions if the council wants to, recommended motions for both A and B which deal with the, now I just, bear with me. Try to keep on top of this here. A and B which deal with not only the approval of the plans and specifications but also authorizing for bid I believe is the next aspect of it. Is that correct Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Sorry for my delays there. So the recommending, so we have a motion from Mr. Laufenburger before us. At this point we will be discussing this. We will be providing public comment if necessary. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor then at that point is it proper to ask for an amendment to Mr. Laufenburger ’s motion and would he have to agree to accept it? Where are we at procedurally? Mayor Furlong: No. Procedurally an amendment can always be made and seconded and then the council will vote on the amendment and then you ’re discussing the amended motion. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So at this point where we are Mr. Scott correct me if I ’m wrong, we ’ve brought Mr. Laufenburger ’s motion back on the table that is before us. At this point for cleanliness and because the issue of the barrier ’s already been discussed and action ’s been taken on that I think first an amendment to remove any reference to the barrier between Kiowa and Springfield Roads. Councilman McDonald: Then I would so make such an amendment that any reference to the barrier in the original motion be removed from that motion and that we go forward strictly based upon the street. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 21 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then would you also Mr. McDonald incorporate by amendment or recommend an amendment, move an amendment to incorporate the two proposed motions in tonight ’s staff report. Councilman McDonald: Right. A and B which is Kiowa Trail and the Minnewashta Shores, is that correct? Mayor Furlong: That ’s correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I would also. Mayor Furlong: …staff report. Councilman McDonald: As stated in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to Mr. McDonald ’s amendment? Councilwoman Ernst : Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Everybody ’s clear? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve an amendment that any reference to the barrier between Kiowa Trail and Springfield Drive in the motion made on January 27, 2014 be removed. All voted in favor and the motion to approve the amendment carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails 5-0. Okay, we now have the amended motion in front of us. Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. Oehme, any additional information from the staff on this item? What we ’re dealing with now is strictly street improvements on Kiowa as proposed without any reference to the barrier and also street improvements authorizing, approving plans and specifications authorizing bids for the improvements in the Minnewashta Shores area. Public hearing for that was held at our last council meeting . Our first February council meeting. Okay, is there any update from the staff on either of these items? Paul Oehme: No. I do have a presentation. Just a run through the project again and if you ’d like to be reminded about the project and some of the documentation that goes along with that. Otherwise we can, if you have any questions for us too. Mayor Furlong: No. I mean typically I ’ve got no objection to that so please. Paul Oehme: Okay. So staff would just like to update the council again and remind you about what ’s included in the project. So this year ’s street project 2014 is, there ’s two project areas. One is Minnewashta Shores neighborhood from Cypress Drive up to Arbor Lanes and then Kiowa Trail specifically from 101 to the Springfield Drive. In total there ’s 1.1 miles of streets that are being considered for reconstruction. Briefly the streets are in poor condition. They were built in the early 70 ’s. Street indexes of the pavement condition suggest that we cannot maintain these roads using preventative maintenance techniques such as sealcoats and just patching at this time. We do have documented numerous watermain breaks in this area so at this time these streets are warranted for reconstruction based upon the City ’s practice of reconstructing streets that have reached their life expectancy. And again the Kiowa Trail, same thing. These streets are pavement condition indexes are really low. 13 out of 100 Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 22 basically for a new street so this section of roadway is also recommended for reconstruction. Again the proposal before you tonight is to reconstruct both of these neighborhoods. Full depth and we have looked at basically the geometrics of the roadway. Like to try to keep the roadway width about the same as it is today. There ’s a lot of steep topography, steep driveways. There really isn ’t that much wiggle room to widen the streets out in either of these neighborhoods to make them our standard 31 foot road width. So we ’d like to replace the pavement section. Add draintile. Try to keep that water out of the subgrade as much as we can. Residents can connect into that draintile in the future for sump pump usage and discharge. Try to keep that water off the surface of the street as well. We also like to install curb and gutter in both of these neighborhoods for drainage purposes and to keep the road integrity intact as well. Keep the road together. Installing new watermain services in both of these areas. Kiowa Trail currently does not have water service. Everybody ’s on wells in this area. We would like to bring in water and services to each of those property owners in conjunction with this project. Storm sewer improvements are also a part of this project. Each of the neighborhoods are going to try to treat the water as much as we can to as high a level as we can and then there ’s also miscellaneous sanitary sewer repairs associated with each of these projects as well. For example the storm sewer improvements in Springfield neighborhood, we have worked with the homeowner's association in this area. We have last council meeting as you recall there was a homeowner's association city agreement that we would be able to utilize the park that ’s owned, maintained by the homeowner's association for storm sewer improvements staging area. It ’s very cost effective for both parties to look at that. Saves the city cost for trucking off some of the material. Also it improves the park for aesthetics and for playability of the park. We ’re going to try to make that area as flat as we can and also incorporate some storm sewer infiltration techniques in this area to try to treat the water before it ends up in Minnewashta. Lake Minnewashta. And again the storm sewer improvements in Kiowa Trail, we ’re looking at previous pavement parking lot where the current parking lot ex ists. Try to infiltrate as much water as we can. Iron filing systems in the existing pond and park. In Bandimere Park. And then also storm sewer improvements and sump manholes and s n affle b affles in this area as well to try to capture some of the sediments before they are discharged into the lake. Construction. The watermain in each of these neighborhoods would be open cut so there is some disruption to the traveling public in this area. We ’re going to try to work with the property owners and the contractor to try to stage the construction as much as we can to reduce the disruption to the neighborhood as best as we can. Temporary water services would have to be installed in the Kiowa Trail area. And like all other projects connecting through the existing water connections to their houses, inspection would work with the contractor to coordinate work and notify residents of upcoming construction in front of their houses. We ’ll try to send out emails and phone calls and door hangers as much as we can to try to coordinate the work when construction ’s going to be going on in front of people ’s houses. Mailboxes would have to be removed and relocated. We ’re going to have to work with the post master on where those, that temporary mailbox location would be located in each of the neighborhoods. And then we also require that the contractor work with the garbage collectors in the area to make sure that garbage collection is taking place on the appropriate day and that residents are still being served. This is just a brief cost estimate. The budget and what each of the neighborhoods, cost estimates for each of the neighborhoods. So Minnewashta Shores is broken out into each of the funding categories and utility improvements so Minnewashta Shores is a little over $1.5 million dollars. Kiowa Trail is about $718,000 for those improvements and the costs currently includes 10% contingencies an d 10% indirect costs as well. With that preliminary assessments. Minnewashta Shores is basically just to be assessed, proposed to be assessed for the street improvements as per our assessment practice. 40 parcels in that neighborhood. Based upon the current estimate, the estimated assessment is a little over $6,800 and Kiowa Trail the total assessment is almost $14,000. That includes water service extensions for each of the property owners in this neighborhood. That is proposed to be assessed 100% to the benefiting property owners since there is no water service currently at that, on this project area. Again terms of the assessment are proposed to be over a 10 year period and the interest rate, prime rate at the time of contract award plus 2% just for carrying costs for the City. If the project were to move forward, bid opening we ’re anticipating sometime in March. End of March. Assessment hearing is in April and construction start is in May. Paving Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 23 operations, we ’re going to try to have most of the construction, each of the neighborhoods completed by August. End of August before school starts and substantial completion, except for the wear course by October of this year. Final wear course would be end of July or end of June of next year. We just want to make sure that the pavement section in the streets go through one freeze thaw cycle before we put that final wear course on. So based upon that information the revised feasibility study staff believes that the project is feasible, necessary and cost effective and would request that the project would move forward. With that if there ’s any questions at this time, be more than happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme, thinking about Kiowa Trail. You have plans to put a wear course on 101 this spring or summer is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Will that in any way interfere with this construction? Paul Oehme: No, it should not. Wear course on 101 will be fairly routine. They ’ll come in and put the wear course on in a day in this area so in terms of interruption and construction or traffic access, I don ’t think it should be that big of a problem. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you. There is a motion before us that as amended to include the items under the proposed motion here in the screen so that ’s already been incorporated into the motion before us. Is there any discussion on the motion for these projects? I guess the only comment I would say is that in both neighborhoods with regard to the street improvement projects there was …of the comments made to go forward with the projects. We ’ve got opportunities to improve stormwater management in both these projects which are located near lakes so that ’s always a positive. Those improvements are being born by the City and not being assessed to any of the homeowners. I know the homeowner's association up in Minnewashta Heights neighborhood is helping with the location of the stormwater pond so it is positive. Before we move forward though I will allow for some public comment. We had a public hearing on both of these items which was closed but because this is coming back, was tabled if there ’s new information or if any residents would like to provide any comments, I want to make sure that we hear those before we take action on the amended motion so, just want to make sure if there ’s anything else. Kiowa Trail Resident: Yeah, I ’m not going over the barrier. Mayor Furlong: No, that ’s fine. Kiowa Trail Resident: Quick question and comment. We did have a meeting a week and a half ago with staff and there was a lengthy discussion. Obviously we wanted to make our point to staff that the barrier was our primary motivation for engaging the staff and having that discussion but subsequent to making that statement we did go through with staff over the recommendations that staff had. We did discuss you know for better than an hour the various options. The circle was probably the best of all of the options that were presented if the barrier was to come down. That seemed to give you know an added disincentive for cut through traffic from other neighborhoods. You know short of that I mean obviously the Springfield neighborhood spoke for themselves as to the dividers and lane things that they didn ’t feel were as functional as they would like to see. Signage doesn ’t do a whole lot of good if people are just cutting through. You know the reason they ’re cutting through is to speed up their commute but a circle of Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 24 some kind one, distinguishes between the two neighborhoods and there needs to be some distinguishing you know marker here. You ’ve got two different street names. I didn ’t hear anybody take you know inferring that they were going to change the names on these two streets. One neighborhood has an association that limits their homeowners on what they can do. Our neighborhood does not so some kind of divider that indicates to people that are traveling through that they ’re two different neighborhoods would be appropriate. So rather than just dismiss them all and say you know we ’re not going to do anything to slow traffic down to make this less of an inviting cut through, we would prefer to see as many things as possible. One being the circle or whatever you know. At least it gives an indication to people to slow down. I had suggested at that time that we put a crosswalk in and potentially a stop sign at that point because it does become an area where it is where there ’s an entrance to the park and there will be people coming in and out of that. There is a driveway with multiple homes directly across from that circle. In that circle so people are going to be trying to skirt around that quickly and if we can slow them down even more it would be even more appreciated so whatever city staff can suggest would be appreciated. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. With regard to a stop sign. Is that a proper location for a stop sign? Paul Oehme: I don ’t think it would meet warrants just based upon my knowledge of the area. I don ’t think that would help. Mayor Furlong: Okay. With regard to a traffic circle there, can it be designed for a 25 or 30 miles an hour type of a design so we ’re not slowing cars down to 15 miles an hour? To me that would be too much of a burden for just people using a public road. I still don ’t know if that ’s an appropriate place to do it. If it would be, if the barrier hadn ’t been there would we be discussing a traffic circle I guess is one of my questions. I can open that up to the council as well but you know I wouldn ’t want, I understand your comments. I think we should think about what we ’re doing and why we ’re doing it but. Paul Oehme: Sure. Yeah, so again the traffic circle mayor would, is designed to slow the traffic down in that particular location so you know if we would put some sort of median in but try to keep traffic at 25. I don ’t think that serves anybody ’s good. It does delineate between the two neighborhoods but I don ’t know if that ’s the appropriate place for that or not so, for traffic calming I mean to put it in I think that ’s the traffic speed that you would like to see going through the circle would be from that 10 to 15 miles per hour so if the council doesn ’t think that ’s appropriate for this area I would recommend not putting one in. To the caveat though, if we do see you know traffic speeding or we do see a problem there, to put a traffic circle in later it will cost a lot more money. I mean the cost, the $1,500 that I had estimated in the background indicated when the road was going to be reconstructed. All the curb and gutter would be there. To put a traffic circle in the future, we have to rip out curb and gutter. We have to rip out asphalt and reconfigure that whole area so it ’d be substantially more to put it in later versus doing it now. At the time of reconstruction so I just wanted to make sure that the council understood the costs for if we put it in now versus potentially in the future. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Why don ’t we take that under advisement if you will and I want to make sure, anybody else want to make public comment? Thank you. Oh, okay. Cathy Erpelding: Hi. My name ’s Cathy Erpelding . I live at 9061 Springfield Drive. Just to reiterate what the gentleman just said as far as the circle and the delineating the neighborhoods. As a reminder also if people do use Springfield to go south and then Kiowa to hit 101, it ’s a pretty significant steep hill there so if they ’re hitting that area where the barrier is right now at 25 miles an hour, even if they don ’t accelerate down that hill, by the time they get down to the bottom they ’re going to be going significantly faster based on what happened over the summer from my understanding and with no sidewalks and for the safety of the Kiowa residents, you might want to take that under consideration. Thank you. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 25 Mayor Furlong: Anyone else like to make public comment this evening on either of these two projects? Thank you for those comments. Comments and discussion from members of the council. On any aspects of these projects including the comments we ’ve heard tonight on the traffic circle. Councilwoman Ernst: Mr. Mayor I would. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah. I know when we originally talked about this at the last meeting that was, it sounded to me like that was the best option for calming at that point an I know you ’ve looked at many other different options and I ’m glad you brought that up tonight Paul with the cost because I wasn ’t thinking about that later on we ’d have to rip everything up to put it in a nd so if that ’s something that I guess what council agrees with then I would certainly support that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other thoughts? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess as Mr. Laufenburger had said, he wanted some kind of a statement as to where we ’re at on all of this. I ’m perfectly fine with deferring to staff on this and I would expect if there is something that can be done you will come back to us with a recommendation but at this point I guess I ’m not in favor of moving forward with anything until staff has had the opportunity to look at it and kind of come up with you know what is appropriate and at that point I can you know consider it but I would say give staff the latitude at this point to look at this. Address the comments that have come in. I ’m very supportive of doing that and if there is another solution you want to bring back to council, by all means I would encourage you to do so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah I ’d like to weigh in just a little bit I guess. Mayor Furlong: Sure, nope. Absolutely. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I understand what happened tonight and I understand what happened 2 nights beforehand and with the staff meeting and the residents how, like I said there was a real firm line that was drawn in the sand. It was an all or nothing deal for both sides. That now is over and I think if people still wanted to go back and reconsider, and I think that that ’s totally appropriate to go okay, we ’ve got this coming down now. I still think it ’s appropriate to still consider the circle. Yes it does perhaps slow traffic down to 10 miles an hour. 15 miles an hour but it ’s not traffic. We just told the neighbors that there ’s not going to be all this traffic coming through so if it is just one car, two cars every once in a while coming through, it ’s not going to be you know slowing the flow of traffic down at all. I still feel for the neighborhood. I really do and that ’s my main concern. I don ’t want to sit here all night and arguing about a traffic circle at all but I still do feel that you know personally I need to do my due diligence to make sure that I ’ve done what I can do for the residents, even though they don ’t agree with bringing the barrier down. This is still going to make it maybe a little bit easier to at least calm the traffic coming into the neighborhood and that ’s the only way, the only reason why I ’m looking at it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know that we don ’t do it for every neighborhood. I understand that but like I said this has been a really hard issue for everybody and if this could be just some way to give them peace of mind, you know I think the city would still run just fine if that circle was there and it would still Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 26 run just fine if it wasn ’t but if it makes them a little more comfortable, I ’m still for the traffic circle. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yes. Question Mr. Oehme. I think Ms. Erpelding raises a good point. Are there any plans for change in grade from the high point of the connection between Springfield Drive and Kiowa and the low point of Kiowa? Paul Oehme: No there is not. We have, with the driveways the way they are, the topography and the way the road is currently aligned there really isn ’t much opportunity to change the grade of the road coming down or the alignment. Councilman Laufenburger: Even shaving off some of the Springfield and moving it into Kiowa? Paul Oehme: We ’d have to shave or reconstruct a fairly good portion of the Springfield Drive roadway to really significantly improve the grade of the … Councilman Laufenburger: And that certainly would then change the connection between Ms. Mason ’s driveway, which is the first house north of the barrier. Paul Oehme: That ’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: And etc. Okay. Well, I tried to say this but not effectively before and that is that I think that it ’s appropriate that we direct staff to come back with, excuse me. Now that the decision on the barrier is final, asking the residents to review calming techniques knowing that we really are interested in hearing some sort of movement on their part and that staff should come back with a recommendation for traffic calming techniques that are shown to be effective and agreeable to the residents of the neighborhood. Mayor Furlong: Well and I guess. Councilman Laufenburger: And I would support a traffic circle. Mayor Furlong: Come back, okay. Thank you. I mean come back when because we want to move forward with this project and I, I understand the comments made tonight about the traffic circle. I just, I ’m looking at this from a public policy standpoint and I don ’t know that we have, do we have any of this anywhere else in the city? Paul Oehme: Mayor we have traffic roundabouts. We don ’t have a traffic circle in residential areas that I ’m aware of … Mayor Furlong: It was my understanding the roundabouts were to improve the movement of traffic. Paul Oehme: It is. Mayor Furlong: Not to restrict traffic or to, it ’s actually meant to make traffic flow. Paul Oehme: Correct. It does. Mayor Furlong: More safely. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 27 Paul Oehme: It does. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Laufenburger: Remind me, where do we have roundabouts? Paul Oehme: Bluff Creek Boulevard and Bluff Creek Drive. Mayor Furlong: Near the Town and Country. K. Hovnanian. Paul Oehme: K. Hovnanian area. Mayor Furlong: Pioneer Pass area. Paul Oehme: Entering the Lifetime Fitness. There ’s a traffic circle there too. Mayor Furlong: But again the purpose of those are to improve traffic flow and safety. Not to curtail it, restrict it. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So I appreciate the comments. I ’m just, you know my thought was and it ’s for the purpose of having it at 25 or 30 miles an hour, I know 25 miles an hour was the average speed cars were going so it would certainly slow down cars. Anybody going over the speed limit at that 25 miles an hour rate. I think we ’ve talked about and dealt with the issue of cars cutting through and safety issues and stuff like that so it really isn ’t that type of issue here. It ’s more one for putting in place an appropriate residential street and is there a safety need for doing that. My thought would be, as I mentioned before would be to wait and address issues as they occur rather than anticipating problems that we ’re putting up barriers and restrictions to just normal residential traffic. But I mean the thought was to come back with some direction is what I ’m hearing so maybe that ’s the route to go if we move forward with these plans and then if staff believes that there needs to be a change either during the current project or at some point in the future they can come back to us, as they would with any other neighborhood. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah Mr. Mayor, I wasn ’t putting a time table on this direction to staff. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: From my viewpoint, well yes there could be savings by putting a traffic circle in now. Clearly Mr. Oehme you ’ve said that. I ’m not interested in spending money now that maybe wouldn ’t be spent in the future. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Councilman Laufenburger: If the staff doesn ’t come back with a recommendation that says you know we can ’t really build a traffic circle to restrict traffic to only 20 miles an hour. If that ’s the case then I ’d be willing to listen to that but if they came back and said, we can build a traffic circle to restrict traffic to 20 miles an hour. We think that ’s an effective in accomplishing something that appears to be a problem, as Mrs. Erpelding said, then I ’d be willing to consider whatever the cost might be at that time. I think we owe these residents that. Mayor Furlong: And that ’s fair. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 28 Councilman Laufenburger: So I was not looking for a timeframe on my comment Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so I agree with that. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Mayor Furlong: I would agree with that and I think that ’s. Councilman McDonald: I agree with that. Mayor Furlong: What ’s been said as well. Yes. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah I just, I mean I didn ’t want to pay, I guess I was looking at based on what Paul said, I didn ’t want to pay $10,000 later versus $1,500 today if that ’s the direction we were going to go. Councilman Laufenburger: But in fact Councilwoman Ernst if we don ’t put a traffic circle in now and Paul comes back to us and says, I think we have a problem and that problem can be addressed with a traffic circle and it ’s going to cost us, even if it says $15,000 I would give that consideration if it could solve a problem. Excuse me. Councilwoman Ernst: And I ’m not, and I guess what I ’m saying is, and I ’m leaving it up to staff. They will know. They can come back to us and say hey, we feel that we should do this now. It will slow it down to your point. If we can slow it down to 20 miles an hour or whatever the case is, then it makes sense to go forward with it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Sounds like we ’re in agreement on that. Any other comments or discussion on the motion as amended authorizing plans and specifications and bids for both of these projects as included in the staff report? Hearing none we ’ll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2014-09: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution authorizing preparation of plans and specifications, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertising for bids for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvement Project (Kiowa Trail Area). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Resolution #2014-10: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing advertising for bids for the 2014 Street and Utility Improvement Project (Minnewashta Shores Area). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. That completes our items of new business this evening. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 29 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just want to thank the Park and Rec department or Mitch especially. I went on the luminary walk on Friday night and it was really a great thing. It was, I wasn ’t sure what I was going to expect but it really was, it was quiet and it was cold and you could see the stars. Mayor Furlong: And snowy. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And snowy. It was perfect winter night and it really, really was a good event, although I did recommend to Mitch that perhaps October is a better month for something like that. But so I think it was the first time we had done that and so I think, I saw everyone having a good time so it was a good event. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Big thanks to the Holiday Inn for allowing us to use their parking lot. They had hot chocolate and coffee and cookies and fire pit was going and it was a great night. I think we had 50 to 75 people participate … Mayor Furlong: Is Reece a people though? He ’s part of the family. Councilwoman Tjornhom: They need some speed bumps for him definitely right. Traffic calming. Mayor Furlong: Any other council presentations? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: Couple of things. We ’ve got a big week here. We ’re interviewing fire chiefs and got 5 candidates that we ’ll be interviewing on Wednesday. Our current chief is one of the 5 and excited to meet people and see their skills and hear about their experiences so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: I ’ve also asked Joel McCol l , the chief from Savage to participate in the interviews with us, along with Sheriff Jim Olson and so we ’re hoping to narrow it down to 2 and have final interviews in a couple weeks. Mayor Furlong: Good. Todd Gerhardt: On that issue. And then tomorrow we have the Buy Chanhassen meeting so those people that are interested in participating, it ’s about the social media. I figured a good topic … Councilman Laufenburger: What ’s your Twitter account? Todd Gerhardt: Whatever Laurie ’s is. Our Twitter queen so, but so that ’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff? Thank you. CORRESONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong: Any comments on the correspondent packet? Mr. Laufenburger. Chanhassen City Council – February 24, 2014 30 Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, yeah. Todd can you just clarify for me. There was a schedule on the Board of Appeals and Equalization. Is that, and it lists Chanhassen in the time of April 21 st through the 25. Is there any action for the City or is that specifically for residents who want to appeal their assessments? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Their assessed market value. It ’s an open book process. They have 5 days to set up a meeting with the Assessor ’s Office down in Carver County. Chaska, Minnesota. Courthouse and to appeal or have an open book discussion with the assessor on how they determined value. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay and is there anything that we in the city do to make sure that the citizens know that this is the timeframe available to them? Do we put it in the Villager? On our website? Things like that. Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We have it on our website and it explains the process and who to contact and the times. Mayor Furlong: Isn ’t the information also included on the statement of proposed assessments that come out from the County? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So the same sheet that shows the Councilman Laufenburger: Property tax. Mayor Furlong: No. Well proposed assessment and it may come out with the property tax bill for saving a mailing but the proposed assessment as of January of 2014 on that sheet it will also talk about when people can set up those meetings. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Todd Gerhardt: And times. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Trying to get out ahead …people aware and thank you to Kim Meuwissen for putting that on our website. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other comments on the discussion packet? If not, if there ’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Withrow STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Curt Kobilarcsik 9149 Springfield Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CAMDEN RIDGE-PLANNING CASE 2014-03: REQUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CAMDEN RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO ADJUST SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING ON 36.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) AND LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 212, NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND EAST OF PIONEER PASS (CAMDEN RIDGE). APPLICANT: LENNAR. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller asked about hard surface coverage minimums. Commissioner Weick asked for clarification on setback requirements. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Camden Ridge Planned Unit Development residential side yard setback requirements and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKESIDE 8 TH ADDITION – PLANNING CASE 2014-04: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF .2338 ACRES OF PROPERTY (REPLAT OF LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 3, LAKESIDE 7 TH ADDITION) INTO TWO (2) LOTS; AND A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE A THREE-UNIT TOWNHOUSE TO A TWINHOME ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) AND LOCATED AT 35, 45 AND 55 RILEY CURVE, LAKESIDE 8 TH ADDITION. APPLICANT: RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION (REC, INC.) Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller asked about hard surface coverage and the effect on runoff. Mike Roebuck with Ron Clark Construction stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Yusuf asked if the design of the twinhomes would be different than what ’s there now. Mike Roebuck explained that it would be similar to the three unit building across the street. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Summary – February 18, 2014 2 Yusuf moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the subdivision creating two lots out of three lots and an amendment to the site plan to permit a two unit structure in place of the three unit structure, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation subject to the following conditions: Subdivision 1.The development shall comply with the conditions of approval for the Lakeside 7 th Addition. 2.The reduction of one lot will require that the City process a $1,400 credit in park fees. Site Plan 1.Buildings over 9,250 square feet in area (floor area to include all floors, basements and garages) must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. 2.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 3.Retaining walls over four feet high require a design by a professional engineer, a building permit, inspections and final approval. 4.Walls and projections within five feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 5.Buildings are required to be designed by an architect and engineer (licensed in the State of Minnesota) as determined by the Building Official. 6.The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 7.The site plan shall comply with the conditions of approval granted in conjunction with Lakeside 7 th Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 7, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE AND FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS. Kate Aanenson provided an update on action taken by City Council on Planning Commission items, and discussed future agenda items. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephen Withrow STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Curt Kobilarcsik 9149 Springfield Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CAMDEN RIDGE-PLANNING CASE 2014-03: REQUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CAMDEN RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO ADJUST SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING ON 36.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) AND LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 212, NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND EAST OF PIONEER PASS (CAMDEN RIDGE). APPLICANT: LENNAR. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. As you stated this is a Camden Ridge development. The public hearing is tonight. This goes to City Council on March 10, 2014. The developer is Lennar. The actually representativ e for the developer contacted me today. He was stuck out in California and could not get back in time. His flight yesterday was cancelled and the one today was delayed so he won ’t be back until later this evening. The other representative is at another public hearing in another city so, however we believe this is a fairly straight forward development proposal and so they asked that we present it and go forward. The property is located at 1500 Pioneer Trail. As part of the Camden Ridge development they actually extended River Rock Drive south from Bluff Creek Boulevard and it follows this alignment and then comes into the development. They have started the preliminary subdivision work and so they have the first phase, well it ’s all being done in one phase but they have the temporary road in so they can start their first building right at the entrance to the project. The request is to amend the planned unit development standards for single family homes setbacks. Currently all the setbacks are 7 1/2 foot side yard setbacks with the 15 foot separation between the buildings. However for the single family homes within the project they ’d like to make that a 5 foot setback and a 10 foot setback with the 15 foot separation. This is the same setback requirements as in the residential low and medium density district and we have it in other, the Pioneer Pass project and other projects within this area. From all practical purposes you won ’t be able to tell that there ’s a difference in setback between the building. 2 1/2 feet ’s not a lot so this map shows the portion of the development that will be impacted by the new setback requirements. Basically the reason for it is a slight curve in the road meant that these homes right here would not be able to meet the setbacks requirement and rather than come in and request variances for the those, they decided let ’s change the standard and we agreed that that is very easy to do and then it ’s easier for us to administer and everyone in the neighborhood would have the same requirements. The specific in the amendment, we just added the single family detached requirement of 5 and 10 feet setbacks with the 15 foot separation and noted that the other, 7 1/2 foot setback is for the twinhome development. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to the planned unit development side yard setback Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 18, 2014 2 requirements and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I ’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Bob, I don ’t see and I don ’t believe there would be an impact on the hard cover. Generous: No. Aller: That ’s still going to be required to be meeting the minimum? Generous: As part of the overall project they developed a table for maximum site coverage on each lot and they will still have to follow that. Aller: Any other questions? Weick: I had a question on the setback. Just as a point of clarification for me. That ’s the distance between, we ’re talking about the distance between two homes right? Generous: Well that ’s the 15 foot separation. The setbacks are always established from the structure to the property line. Weick: So it ’s 15 feet and it was 15 feet. Generous: Yes. Weick: It ’s just the question of one is going to be a little closer. Generous: Yeah, it shifts 2 1/2 feet. Weick: And the other ’s going to be a little further away. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Aller: Based on the responses any additional questions? Okay, thank you. We ’re going to open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the request that are being made this evening can do so at this time. Seeing no one coming forward I will close the public portion of the hearing and open it for commissioner comments. Great. Well I think the report covers the basis. I don ’t think the applicant had to be here so I don ’t think he was prejudiced at all at this point. I ’m sure they ’ll make an effort to be before the City Council if they feel that it ’s needed. With that I ’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I ’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Camden Ridge Planned Unit Development residential side yard setback requirements and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Camden Ridge Planned Unit Development residential side yard setback requirements and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 18, 2014 3 PUBLIC HEARING: LAKESIDE 8 TH ADDITION – PLANNING CASE 2014-04: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF .2338 ACRES OF PROPERTY (REPLAT OF LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 3, LAKESIDE 7 TH ADDITION) INTO TWO (2) LOTS; AND A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE A THREE-UNIT TOWNHOUSE TO A TWINHOME ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) AND LOCATED AT 35, 45 AND 55 RILEY CURVE, LAKESIDE 8 TH ADDITION. APPLICANT: RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION (REC, INC.) Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. This is just a slightly more complicated project. It ’s a Lakeside 8 th Addition. They ’re replatting three lots into two and they ’re amending the site plan so that they have a two unit building instead of a three unit building within the project. This property is located on Riley Curve within Chanhassen which is on the north side of Lake Riley. This is the last, the 7 th Addition was the last phase of this project that was platted. As you can see the three unit structure was right adjacent to the internal private street system. They ’re proposing to go the two unit structure in two lots. Again they ’re replatting three lots into two and they ’re amending the site plan to change a three unit structure to two unit structure. This shows how the plat, they have the three lots currently. They ’re going to add a new lot line in there and vacate the existing one. There ’s no drainage and utility easements within, internal to the plat. They ’re all outside so there was no vacation required as part of this. The site plan, the structures get a little bigger because they ’re a two unit structure instead of the three unit structure. Slightly narrower on the entire site and complies with all the other setback requirements. The grading plan, this will be a lookout unit so about 7 feet of the lower level will be exposed and then they ’ll have a, on the building elevation you can see. This is the lookout level and then they ’ll have the main level slightly up, 7 feet above grade. Continues a lot of the same material elements from the rest of the project. Slightly different elevation from some of the other buildings in there so. And again this is what the overall 7 th Addition with the new 8 th Addition will look like so again instead of having a three unit structure like this, they ’re having a two unit. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and the amendment to the site plan for a two unit building and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I ’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I ’m going to ask you the same question Bob with regard to hard cover and water, potential problems or lack of problems. There ’s no impact? Generous: There ’s no, actually there ’s a little reduction in the hard cover but minimal. This is a planned development. We looked at the entire project all the way up to the lakes so. Aller: And as a practical matter they ’re just shifting the use of the space into two. Generous: Right. Aller: Consolidating. Generous: And the applicant is here tonight so he can go into that further if he likes. Aller: Any additional questions based on the report? Weick: Is it here because it was approved with three? Generous: Yes. It was 3 lots and administratively we couldn ’t change those lot lines. Weick: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 18, 2014 4 Aller: Okay. If the applicant wants to come forward he can do so at this time. If not, that ’s fine as well. Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address for the record. Mike Roebuck: Mike Roebuck, Ron Clark Construction. 16431 Highland Circle in Lakeville, Minnesota. Aller: Welcome. Mike Roebuck: Good evening. Just I ’m here for any questions. I think Bob kind of explained our reasoning. Get a little more side yard and the two unit building fits the lot a little bit better than the three did. Aller: Is this primarily market driven? You just think it will market better as a larger unit or is it? Mike Roebuck: Yeah it ’s really just I guess a combination of that. Just the building fits. We kind of had it squeezed in there pretty tight so this gives us a little more green space and gives us the ability to enlarge a few rooms than the previous design. Aller: Great. Any other questions of the applicant? Yusuf: Bob I think you mentioned that it will look different from the other houses in the same development, right? Will it be significantly different? Mike Roebuck: Actually it looks pretty much the same as the three unit building right across the street. Yusuf: Okay. Mike Roebuck: It ’s the same style as that. The other buildings, the other twinhomes we built out there were a little bit different but as far as the building right across the street, pretty much the same. Yusuf: Okay, thank you. Aller: Great. Thank you sir. We appreciate you coming in. Mike Roebuck: Thank you. Aller: With that we ’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Again anyone wishing to speak for or against the request being made before us tonight, please come forward to do so. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing portion of the meeting. Open it to comments. Any additional comments? Weick: No. Aller: Looks good. It ’s consistent with the other plan. With that I ’ll entertain a motion. Yusuf: I ’ll make the motion. Aller: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 18, 2014 5 Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the subdivision creating two lots out of three lots and an amendment to the site plan to permit a two unit structure in place of the three unit structure, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: I ’ll second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the subdivision creating two lots out of three lots and an amendment to the site plan to permit a two unit structure in place of the three unit structure, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation subject to the following conditions: Subdivision 1.The development shall comply with the conditions of approval for the Lakeside 7 th Addition. 2.The reduction of one lot will require that the City process a $1,400 credit in park fees. Site Plan 1.Building s over 9,250 square feet in area (floor area to include all floors, basements and garages) must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. 2.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 3.Retaining walls over four feet high require a design by a professional engineer, a building permit, inspections and final approval. 4.Walls and projections within five feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 5.Buildings are required to be designed by an architect and engineer (licensed in the State of Minnesota) as determined by the Building Official. 6.The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 7.The site plan shall comply with the conditions of approval granted in conjunction with Lakeside 7 th Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 7, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE AND FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS. Aanenson: Thank you Chair, members of the commission. We did not have a meeting the last time so some of our items haven ’t gone to council because there ’s been a bit of a lag time there so for the January 27 th one we did look at the Interim Use for the parking lot construction so that ’s one item that has gone forward. Just for your information too, with the water tower that ’s up there, I ’m not sure if you ’re aware Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 18, 2014 6 of that. So the water tower that we toured, the new water tower. So the utilities on the old water tower are being moved over, except for the AT&T. They ’re doing a temporary structure there so that will be on the middle school site and once the tower is down, which should be happening sometime here in the next couple weeks, they ’ll move that back onto the old water tower site for a few months then eventually that building where they get their electronics and everything will be constructed and they ’ll move their facility over there and so that site will be vacated. And then of course you approved the Hummingbird metes and bounds and that also was approved by the City Council. I think we ’re waiting for a few issues to come in on that and that will be ready to pull permits on that one too for those two lots. And then on the 10 th there was no items of planning in so. And as Bob indicated these will be going yeah March. Second one in March for the March 10 th for the, for action. So with that. Aller: Future agenda items. Aanenson: Yeah, thank you. I wanted to make sure we went through that too. We did have two other subdivisions that came in. The Arbor Cove and the Fretham and both of those had some issues with them. Some little nuances that we ’re trying to work through. One, a drainage ravine kind of going into the property and the other one actually had kind of an encumbered easement we ’re trying to resolve so we had some legal opinions on that so we ’re trying to get those two issues resolved, so they were taken off. They came in actually two weeks ago and then they didn ’t submit again last Friday so we ’re still trying to work through those issues with the applicant and probably property owners and the like but we do believe those two subdivisions will come forward. Again one of them was on a property that we had some issues with before so we ’re hoping that solves some neighborhood problems there. Then the other one, so those are kind of a place holder for the 18 th but for sure Boulder Cove will be in. Lennar ’s picked up that project and that ’s on the north side of Highway 7 and that one looks good. We ’ve gone through that to make sure that the applicant is still alive so we do have a meeting on March 4 th . We do have one item coming forward and that ’s an industrial site. So then our work session on the first. So your task later tonight will then be to interview potential planning commissioners. I did want to clarify that Commissioner Undestad is reapplying so he will not be in the interviews and anybody that ’s reapplying will not sit in the interviews. And then for the work session right now what we have in place is kind of what we do, we ’ll do kind of the general order of business. Chair. Vice-Chair. Kind of set the schedule. We ’ll also talk about year end review. Kind of give you an idea of all the projects that we did. Building permit activity and the like. Then also we ’re kicking off the 101/61 corridor study. The City Engineer and myself would be meeting with the, we ’ve got an engineering firm looking at utilities and then another planning firm looking at the land use down at the southern end of the city so this group will be pretty involved in that discussion too so while we had that kick off meeting here this Thursday, we ’ll get you up to speed when we meet in April but we ’ll have a couple open houses and you will kind of be some of the hosts for that too to kind of hear feedback on what our residents think about that. And then we ’ll also talk about on our work session the new regulations for stormwater management and how it ’s affecting some of these developments, and that ’s some of the reasons these projects are getting hung up a little bit too, trying to work through those new regulations. Now having said that, there ’s always a, the difficult thing trying to balance, we have a lot of projects that are kind of coming together here and I don ’t want to have you, you know have 3 or 4 on one meeting so it ’s always trying to juggle that so having said that, if those two other smaller subdivisions don ’t come together for the 18 th , then we miss the 18 th . We have, yeah. They didn ’t make the 18 th so actually they would down til April 1 st so what we would do then, if we can get these issues resolved, they ’re really, you know they ’re 3 and 4 lot subdivisions so they ’re less complicated. Hopefully if we get the issues resolved. Then I may put those on for the April 1 st , depending on what else. I ’m just again trying to juggle so we don ’t have everything piling up on us now because we ’re working on a couple other projects too so we ’ll just play that by ear. I just want you to know that we will have meetings here the couple next, I anticipate through the rest of the year now. Things are getting, it was cold. We were having getting problems with our projects that were out in the field getting footings in and kind of trying to keep working on things so I think things are underway. So Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 18, 2014 7 what we may do, because we have to have the oath of office at the beginning of the meeting and do that order of business, we ’ll take that part of the meeting. Do the public hearings if there are any and then we ’ll go into work session so that one might be a little bit longer. And we ’ll see if we can start a little sooner. Usually that ’s something that we have a light meal of something. We ’ll see how that plays out so we ’ll keep you posted on that but sorry, that was a little bit lengthy but trying to get the year off to a good start here so, with that you do have in your packet then the candidates so after your adjournment then we ’ll go to a different room. It ’s a little more comfortable instead of you being up in the. Aller: Rather than being up here. Aanenson: That ’s all I had Chair. Aller: Great. Anything from anyone else? Commissioners, any announcements? Great. Well with that I ’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim