Loading...
CC 2014 04 14 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman and Roger Knutson Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good evening. Welcome everybody here in the council chambers and those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us this evening. At this time I would ask members of the council if there are any changes or modifications to the agenda. If not, without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as published. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: First item tonight I’d like to extend an invitation to all Chanhassen residents and guests st to join us for our 31 Annual Easter Egg Candy Hunt. This is the second in a year long series of special events sponsored by the City of Chanhassen and supported by our local service organizations and business community. The Chanhassen Easter Egg Hunt is going to be held this coming Saturday, April th 19 at 9:00 a.m. at City Center Park. It’s open for children 12 years of age and under. We’ll feature candy hunt, coloring contest, prize drawings, special visit from the Easter Bunny. Should be a lot of fun. It always is and with the snow gone it will make it a lot easier to find those eggs so with that I encourage everybody to take a look at the City’s website and check the Easter Egg Candy Hunt out this coming th Saturday, April 19, 9:00 a.m. at City Center Park. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approval of City Council Minutes dated March 24, 2014 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2014 and April 1, 2014 Resolution #2014-21: 3. Approve Resolution Accepting Donations from Community Sponsor Program. Resolution #2014-22: 4. Approve Purchase of Playgrounds and Park Shelter for Pioneer Pass Park and Amendment to the Overall Pioneer Pass Park CIP budget from $350,000 to $377,000. Resolution #2014-23: 5. Lift Station #3: Approve Quote for Replacement of Standby Generator. 6. Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements Project: Request for Wetland Alteration Permit for Proposed Roadway Reconstruction and Improvements of CSAH 61 and Highway 101 Crossing of the Minnesota River. Applicant: Carver County. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Resolution #2014-24: 7. TH 101 River Crossing Project, Approval of Extending Work Hours and Night Work Hours. 8. Approval of Lease Renewal Agreement with Sprint for Cellular Equipment on the Downtown Water Tower. 9. Award of Contract for Fourth of July Fireworks Display for 2014-16, Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. 10. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 25, 2014. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Patrick Johnson: Hello. My name is Patrick Johnson. My address is 26350 Alexander Lane and that’s Shorewood, Minnesota. I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. I’m nd speaking as the representative for the residents of Shorewood Oaks, Strawberry Lane, 62 Street and Church Road. Earlier today you should have received a letter describing the. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, Mr. Johnson? Patrick Johnson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is this regarding the item later on our agenda, the Boulder Cove development? Patrick Johnson: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. What I’d ask you to do is, if you could hold your comments til that item, we’ll make sure that they’re addressed. Patrick Johnson: Okay. Will we be given a chance to respond at that time? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, we’ll certainly provide public comment. There was a public hearing. We’re not going to repeat the public hearing. It was held at the Planning Commission. Patrick Johnson: Yep. Mayor Furlong: But I’d rather take up your comments in the context of that item rather than now in advance of it. Patrick Johnson: Very well. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else under visitor presentations for an item not on our agenda this evening? Okay, why don’t we move to our first item on the agenda which is the Boulder Cove request for preliminary plat and variances to subdivide 13.39 acres. BOULDER COVE, 3670 HIGHWAY 7, APPLICANT: LENNAR: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES TO SUBDIVIDE 13.39 ACRES INTO 31 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM). 2 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item appeared before the st Planning Commission on April 1. The Planning Commission did recommend approval 4 to 1 of this project. There was also a neighborhood meeting held on March 12, 2014 for any of the residents on that. I did hand out for you a petition. I’ll go through that in more detail as we go through the presentation but I think it would be helpful to go through the presentation first and kind of frame up some of the issues and then we’ll circle back to that petition. Then also at the end of the day I did receive an email from Charlie Poi, I hope I’m pronouncing that right so I also gave you that too. Otherwise everything else we received is included in your packet. So with that we’ll move forward with the project. The subject site is located north of Highway 7 and Church Road. This is the subject site. The two properties here. And again nd access then is via Church Road going up West 62 Street and then access to the parcel. The existing conditions, the site was used as a landscaping business over a number of years and there are some tree stands on the property itself. Current access to the property, there is a home here that gets direct access via Highway 7. Another home that has access via Highway 7 and two existing access points that were used as part of the business that was operating there. The 2030 Land Use Plan has designated this area for low density development. The current proposal meets the low density which allows for a maximum of 4 units an acre. The gross density was 2.32 acres and the net density on this site is 3.99 acres so it does meet the zoning and land use consideration. I know there’s a question that was brought up at the hearings regarding school district notification. The school district is notified of our Comprehensive Plan. When we go through that process. Any jurisdiction would comment on that. They are sent a copy of that so they know that information. Also we meet regularly doing projections with both school districts and then I just, I also wanted to add to that, both the Mayor and the City Manager are on, meet monthly with District 276 and 112 on issues of mutual consideration so. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, but clarification it’s regularly. It’s not monthly but. Kate Aanenson: Regularly, sorry. Mayor Furlong: Usually every 2-3 months. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Sorry, every 2-3 months. So the subdivision itself, there was a previous plat on this that was approved in August of 2008. The City Council approved the following, the rezoning of this almost 13 acres of land to Residential Single Family to RLM which is similarly what this is zoned. Although this, the RLM zoning at that point allowed for some singles and some twins so you can see the lots are smaller. At that time there was 39 lots and one outlot so this project is different. So the site plan th included 4 three-plex units and some twins. On September 25 the Council approved the final development and development contract and construction plans and yearly extensions of the project so that project had not gone through and the final extension expired in 2012. So now there’s a different project looking at this property. We’ve had similar circumstances on this where projects may, circumstances may have changed to make that market conditions different as the project go forward. So the proposal summary on this, the applicant again is proposing to divide the property into 31 lots and 3 outlots. The outlots then are the stormwater pond Outlot A and Outlot C and then a preservation area in Outlot B. Again I mentioned the density. It is consistent with the, and meets the standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and all lots are to contain single family homes. The applicant has submitted several home designs they intend to build so there’s 10 different designs. I think on most of the lots of the 10 designs, 6 of the plans would fit on all of the lots but some of the lots may, again that gives a selection for the property owners. Not all of the 10 lots fit on every lot but a majority of them do. The other issue that was brought to is the request for a second, or next generation homes as the applicant is requesting. This doesn’t meet our city ordinance so at this time, while next generation is how they see it, we interpret that as a two family dwelling so at this time we would not permit that. I know that you’ve seen communication regarding 62 homes. We’re looking at this as a 31 subdivision lot. The current ordinances, if someone wanted to do a temporary interim use permit for having a second dwelling unit for an elderly or a child, 3 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 they can go through a process for that. The city ordinance would permit that if someone wanted to proceed with that and they would meet the current city standards but we’re not giving carte blanche to the, as they’re calling the next generation homes. There is a condition in the staff report and we’ll just change the language a little bit on that to make sure it’s clear what our, we have next generation homes on there but I think we want to modify that to state that instead of using the word just next generation that we say the plans proposed that show next generation as included with their proposal would be not approved at this time. Just to be clear on what the intent is there. So again it does meet city ordinance except for the issue regarding the length of the cul-de-sac on that. The length of the cul-de-sac variance we’ve identified in the staff report was to pick up the two additional homes on the property immediately to the east of the site. Both those homes are not included but it’s good planning practice. The next slide I’ll let the City Engineer talk a little bit more detail of some of the road closures that we’ve made to accommodate that but we do want to provide that in the future, that those homes can be accommodated through a public street. This is similar to what we did right across the street on the extension of Minnewashta Landings. There was an access that had 4 homes coming off the end of that street. Direct access onto Highway 7 and we eliminated that and those 4 homes now come through the end of the Minnewashta Landings but at this time I’ll turn it over to the City Engineer to talk about some of those issues. Paul Oehme: Thank Ms. Aanenson. As Ms. Aanenson had indicated, there has been a lot of work on Highway 7 in terms of roadway closure. Highway 7 is a jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota, MnDOT. It is classified as a principal arterial roadway which means that it is designed to carry long trips. Just not local trips. 212 for example and Highway 12 are also classified as a principal arterial. MnDOT’s guidance is to remove private driveways, access points and close access points within say about a quarter mile of each of the access points basically to reduce the amount of conflicts on arterial, principal arterial roadway systems and to remove access points that have contributed to maybe accidents in the past or have poor sight distances. Visibility, those type of things so over the years the City has worked with MnDOT on those type of improvements. For example old Pipewood Curve access over on the west side of town. That access was removed with Hidden Creek. Minnewashta Heights, there has been several access points that have been removed over time from that development and then Boyer Lake Minnewashta area too there has been modifications to access points through that process as well. We are looking at obviously modifying access points for Boulder Cove development. When we have more traffic coming onto local streets, collecting into more of a regional access point that does give some benefit to the principal arterial system and it also does allow potentially for a signal to be warranted in the future when trips and warrants are met at that point in time so that’s another additional benefit for collecting traffic and directing into one single access point. So just want to briefly talk about traffic a little bit too so the Boulder Cove development is here shown in the red star area. So access to the development would be off of Church nd Road, which is currently a 31 foot standard residential street which connects into 62 Street which is maintained by the City of Shorewood. Half of the road however is within the city of Chanhassen city limits and then also connects into Strawberry Lane that ends up going north and T’ing into Smithtown Road. This access or this alignment, this connection is utilized by the Minnetonka School District for access to Minnewashta Elementary School and there is some traffic that’s generated by those trips as nd well. Like I had mentioned 62 Street is only 22 feet wide. Strawberry Lane currently is only 22 feet wide as well which does not meet city standard, Shorewood’s normal roadway width. Minimum roadway width is 24 feet wide. The City staff of Chanhassen and Shorewood have met just recently to talk about this development in particular and have come up with you know a reasonable plan that is before you nd tonight I think to make the connection to 62 Street and to Strawberry Lane with a T intersection and we are looking at making a stop condition at all 3 legs of the intersection in conjunction with this project as well. The developer’s engineer is planning to take traffic counts for this development. Unfortunately when we met with Shorewood it kind of got late and weather conditions did not really allow for us to trade traffic counts at this time so they are planned in the near future here. And again the traffic study that we’re planning on completing would look at the warrants for putting stop signs at this intersection. 4 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Making the intersection, the T intersection and then also looking at the queuing or the back-up potential nd with the traffic that is on 62 Street and Strawberry Lane. Taking background traffic counts as well and this information will also help the City of Shorewood in their planning process. In the future the City of nd Shorewood has indicated that they are looking at making upgrades to 62 Street and Strawberry Lane. Potentially widening the street and maybe making a pedestrian connection along this road as well so that’s all kind of part of the plan moving forward. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, Councilwoman Tjornhom has a question. Paul Oehme: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry Paul. I don’t mean to put you in a spot but all the improvements and all the changes that you’re talking about regarding Church Road and Strawberry Lane, do you have a mock up drawing of any of that for tonight to see? nd Paul Oehme: I don’t think, well I could show you the plat but in terms of improvements to 62 Street nd and the intersection, the intersection currently right now at 62 and Strawberry Lane is a through movement so it’s just basically a curve with no stop conditions there. We are just making a T, or planning to make it a T intersection there. It would provide some traffic calming at that intersection as well and we know that there has been some conflicts at that intersection in the past so we think that’s definitely a good improvement from it’s current conditions. And like I said in the future the City of nd Shorewood is planning to make improvements to Strawberry Lane and 62 Street. Obviously the City of nd Chanhassen would be involved with future improvements to 62 Street since it’s our jurisdiction on the ndnd south side of the center line of 62 Street but we feel that making improvements to 62 and Strawberry Lane really has to be coordinated well with the City of Shorewood. We are, you know we think that making the intersection, the T intersection does definitely help the situation but long term you know that’s something that both of the communities still has to study and move forward with. nd Mayor Furlong: Are there any current plans to improvement either 62 or Strawberry Lane? Paul Oehme: Not at this time. The City of Shorewood has indicated that they’re, they’re probably about 5 years out. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme? May I Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yes. nd Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme, when you describe the T intersection at 62 and Strawberry Lane, what you’re talking about is the T is formed with a, the Strawberry Lane would continue south and would become whatever that cul-de-sac is called, am I saying that correctly? nd Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Yeah, so it would be a 180 degree line basically going into 62 Street so. Mayor Furlong: As opposed to the curve. Paul Oehme: Yeah so. Councilman Laufenburger: So Strawberry Lane would go straight north from where that intersects? 5 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Paul Oehme: Correct, yeah. So this is a little bit skewed right now but it would basically T into Strawberry Lane here. Go straight through but there’d be still a stop condition on southbound Strawberry Lane and then northbound Strawberry Court here. nd Councilman Laufenburger: How about a stop sign on the eastbound 62 as well? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: So that will be a 3 way stop there. Paul Oehme: Correct. That would be, that’s the plan. Mayor Furlong: And. Councilman Laufenburger: Go ahead. Mayor Furlong: I was just going to say, are those stop signs, you’re looking at the traffic counts to determine if that’s warranted or not correct? Paul Oehme: Right, yep. Mayor Furlong: So it’s going to. It’s still, you think it might be, it’s still going to be dependent upon the traffic. Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely. Absolutely. So and that’s, I know the City of Shorewood has looked at this at a high level. We have looked at it at a high level. We think it’s going to meet it but we don’t know that for sure. We just think it quantitatively makes, go through the process and make sure we’re documenting it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: The width of the road in the Boulevard Cove development is 31 feet, is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. nd Councilman Laufenburger: And the width of 62 Street is currently 22. The width of Strawberry Lane is currently 22 and the code for Shorewood is minimum 24. Paul Oehme: That’s my understanding. I think Strawberry is also 22. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Paul Oehme: So is there any other? Mayor Furlong: No. We’ll interrupt you again if we have to. Paul Oehme: Perfect. Thank you. Alright, so let me just. Alright. So we talked about the connections and where access points, where the access point would be. You know just talking again about the variance for the cul-de-sac obviously, the spacing requirements from Church Road to where that road would connect in potentially to Highway 7 would not meet spacing requirements set aside by MnDOT in 6 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 our code so that’s why we’re not proposing that connection point. Here’s just a slide briefly of what the traffic, projected traffic trips would be for the development proposed currently without the next gen units included and then also just comparing it to what the 20 or the 2006 townhome, townhouse development was back in 2006 so using the Institute of Transportation Engineering statistics and tables we are coming up with about 75 more trips per day above and beyond what the 2006 proposal was. And then if we look at the peak periods, the a.m. peak period basically from 7:00 to say 8:00, maybe 9:00, we’re looking at about another 7 trips there and then the peak period hours we’re looking at about another 11 trips per day there above and beyond what the 2006 project had projected out so those are the numbers that we’re most concerned with from an engineering perspective. A.m. and p.m. peak hours because that’s when we see the most congestion where most problems with the system. Want to move on now to drainage. This slide shows the drainage areas that are currently exist today so basically what this shows is the yellow area here, areas, if you can see it, E5 and E6, the yellow area currently drains to the north to the Shorewood city limits and north of there so there is, that area drains north. The area in green here, which basically currently drains to the west to the single family properties to the west of the proposed development area and the area in pink currently drains to the south to the MnDOT ditch currently that exists there today. So under the proposed conditions the yellow area that drains to the north, there’s still a small area that does drain to the north but it’s substantially reduced. There’s a reduction of about 2.37 acres that drains from, that used to drain to the north that won’t drain there anymore. That area more or less will drain into the new filtration area that’s shown here in kind of a blue area or the purple area. That area will drain then to the south into the blue area which eventually ends up in the NURP pond or the stormwater pond that’s being, would be constructed with this development. The area in pink again, that’s the area that is, would be draining to the drainage ditch within the MnDOT right-of-way as well so in terms of water management, you know there is a substantial amount of water that will not be heading north to Shorewood or north and out of the city limits under the proposed development. And again there will be a lot more area that won’t drain to the west under this development. It would drain into a stormwater pond and discharge into the drainage ditch that is currently along Highway 7. Drainage has been one of the main, or one of the topics of concern that we’ve heard from the neighbors in this area and try to address that issue as best as we can under this development. Ground water is also a concern. We have heard from several property owners on the west side of the development that they have sump pumps that run continuously. The developer and the City have worked together to try to address some of those concerns as well. We did take numerous borings out here and piezometers to look at where the water is. Looking at the borings and where the piezometers and the water, the ground water level is today, we feel that there are some areas in here that has perched water. That means that there’s a clay, a bottom clay area and there’s some sand seam that’s inbetween another clay layer on top and that water is just kind of pinched inbetween there so that potentially looks like it’s elevating some of the ground water readings that we received so far. In order to address some of those concerns we do have some infiltration basins in Outlot C that’s going to be proposed to be constructed. There is a deeper stormwater pond that will potentially capture some of that ground water from this area and direct it into the pond. Strawberry Lane will have drain tile on both sides of the roadway for new residents to utilize and connect their sump pumps into as well. And then also there is a proposed French drain system along the west property line here that is basically a drain tile wrapped in rock and fabric and that would be put into artificially lower the ground water in this area and potentially help the residents on the west side of the proposed development to lower the ground water tables in this area as well. That water would also be discharged into the MnDOT drainage ditch as well so if there’s any questions in terms of drainage, I’ll give it back to Ms. Aanenson. Councilman Laufenburger: Could you, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Please. 7 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme the change in drainage, you said something like 2.5 acres or something would be moved. The drainage would move south as opposed to north. To what do you attribute that change in drainage? Paul Oehme: Just the grading. The grading of the area so basically we’re installing a filtration basin at this location at drainage point P4 basically so this is a artificially lowered area that’s going to be naturally draining to this area as opposed to draining to the north where the grades are currently directing the water. Councilman Laufenburger: So when water drains to P4 it goes into Outlot C, is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: That storm pond. And the water that collects in that storm pond on Outlot C, will there be an underground culvert that will take it to Outlot A for that storm water? Paul Oehme: Correct. So there’s a culvert, a storm water pipe system, conveyance system that would discharge that overflow water into the regional or the local storm water pond that would be constructed in conjunction with this project as well so all, basically all the area in blue and purple. Councilman Laufenburger: Gray. Paul Oehme: Yeah, basically that all would eventually drain into the pond in the southwest corner. Councilman Laufenburger: And water that, where does that pond water then go? Does it just seep down or will it be delivered into that trench? Paul Oehme: Yeah, so we’ve looked at that, there always has to be a discharge point from these sort of ponds so, and we’ve worked with MnDOT to facilitate an outlet from this pond into MnDOT’s drainage ditch which heads to the west. Councilman Laufenburger: So that goes west towards Pipewood and that direction. Paul Oehme: Correct. Yep, exactly. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: And then under Church Road and then out to the west. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And you’re comfortable that you’re, I’m just going to call them water engineers, that that system can accommodate heavy rain, etc? Paul Oehme: Yeah. We modeled the system for a 100 year storm events and there’s, the pond is designed for emergency overflows as well so any potential plugging of the pipe that outlets the pond at the southwest corner, there’ll be emergency overflow where that will, water will get up to a certain level and then discharge over the pond into the drainage ditch before it ends up in somebody’s back yard. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Now speak a little bit more about this French drain that you talked about on the western boundary of Boulder Cove that would be on the eastern boundary of those people who have Church Road addresses, right? Paul Oehme: Sure. 8 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: So how do, I understand from the letter and I received some emails that their sump pumps are running a lot so why would you suggest that a French drain there would actually potentially lower the water table on those properties. Can you just speak to that a little? Paul Oehme: Sure, absolutely. So this area is primarily a clay laden soil area so. Councilman Laufenburger: And just for those uneducated, clay tends to keep water higher up, is that correct? Paul Oehme: It just seems to trap water and water seems to find little seams and hide out there and then it eventually works it’s way you know into people’s basements and sump pumps and those type of things. So what we’re trying to do here is actually artificially put in a seam along the property line of the new development here so that, that water in the ground would have a conveyance, escape route instead of heading basically to the houses or to somebody’s back yard, it would potentially have a easier time going into the French drain which is basically a pipe. A perforated pipe with rock around it instead of really dense clay material. Councilman Laufenburger: So you’re going to build an underground river bed. Paul Oehme: Yeah, more or less. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And with the idea that that underground river bed will be the escape route for that water that would otherwise just pool up in the back yards of those people that live on Church Road. Paul Oehme: Or pool up or end up in their sump pumps so. So we don’t feel it’s going to solve 100% their problem. Councilman Laufenburger: But it could help. Paul Oehme: But it could help. Councilman Laufenburger: It won’t hurt. Paul Oehme: And there is another opportunity that they could tie in their sump pumps to this French drain as well too to, instead of having the water discharge on their property and potentially just recycle into their basements again, that the water would be easily, easier to be discharged and moved away from their property. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Do you have plans to charge the people on Church Road for building that French drain that hopefully helps them? Paul Oehme: No, that’s part of the development contract so. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And how about those people that want to tap their sump pumps directly into that French drain? Are you going to charge them for that? Paul Oehme: No we’re not planning to charge. We all just ask that the property owners would come into the City and pull a permit so we know it’s out and made the connection. 9 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: So you know that the presence is, it’s there. The connection, okay. And why would they want to attach their sump pump discharge to a French drain as opposed to just put it out on their yard? Paul Oehme: Well potentially depending where their discharge point is, that water could re-circulate again and actually you know infiltrate into the ground and head back into their sump pump. Councilman Laufenburger: That would not be a good re-use of water correct? Paul Oehme: Not in my. Councilman Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Oehme. So what I’d like to do next is maybe just review the conditions. Excuse me, the petition. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Kate Aanenson: And kind of go through those questions and I’ll try to answer them and if I need some help from the City Engineer, I’ll ask him to fill in so. Again this petition I received this afternoon. I think it went to the City Council and I passed it out so it’s in front of all the council so we can go through those points there. So the first question is all this property is located within the city of Chanhassen. So all the roads, including the main access road to the development are in Shorewood streets. I think we’ve addressed that tonight talking about what we’re trying to improve there including the T intersection at that and the traffic study. I just want to remind the council that between now and when it comes back for preliminary plat it has to come back with the conditions addressed. We have been working with the applicant on that already. They are making modifications to meet all those conditions so you will see this again for final plat so those things are in the works. Number 2, the Planning Commission claims that the proposal meets all zoning requirements. However the lots are predominantly 15,000 square feet and 30 foot setback averaging 10,000 square feet. The surrounding lots, those of Shorewood, again the city ordinance under the RLM zoning district, it does meet those standards. Again this proposal has less lots and they’re bigger than the previous proposal which had the twins and three-plexes so this does meet the city zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Furlong: And Ms. Aanenson what is the, for, this is proposed to be a RLM zoning, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: So that’s low or medium density. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Residential. And what are the requirements for lot sizes? Kate Aanenson: In the staff report we’ve included the compliance table. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think I’m looking at it right now. Page 17 of the staff report if I’m not mistaken. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: 17 of 25. 10 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So the minimum is 9,000. Mayor Furlong: 357 for the electronic. Kate Aanenson: Yeah and these, all these lots, there’s one that’s, you know the smallest one there is 9,400 but the majority of the lots are well in excess of 10,000 square feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Again we included all the home plans on there. Again there’s 10 different home plans. On all the lots, 6 of those 10 meet, would meet most of those lots so. Mayor Furlong: Okay and the 15,000 square foot, is that a minimum standard for a different zoning? Kate Aanenson: Yes, we do have a 15,000. Within our low density we have, you could do twin in some of the RLM you could do twins as this project had before. A twin or a three-plex. That’s also permitted. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So this is consistent with our zoning ordinance. Mayor Furlong: And a low density guiding or use under the comp plan, land use is how many homes per acre? Residential homes per acre. Kate Aanenson: 4. Up to 4. Mayor Furlong: Up to 4, okay. Kate Aanenson: Up to 4, that’s correct. So there’s, you could do a PUD. There’s a different zoning applications that a developer could apply for. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, Kate? You make reference to the 2008 design and you called that background. What approvals did that receive? Kate Aanenson: That did receive Planning Commission and City Council approval and you also approved the development contract. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So it did have all the entitlements. Councilman Laufenburger: And the only reason it didn’t go forward I understand from the staff report, it actually was, I think it was extended or what’s the term that you use? It was extended for another period of time. Kate Aanenson: The approval, yes. 11 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: And that was really because the housing economic conditions at the time didn’t merit the building, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: So had those situations, had the economic situation not existed the developer, whoever that was at that time. Was it Lennar at that time? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So the developer could easily have gone forward with the plans as they were shown with 39 lots, some of which would have been twinhomes. Actually the majority of which would have been twinhomes. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Or three-plexes. That’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. Kate Aanenson: And again we face that circumstance on some other projects that came back and had to revisit the market, what the conditions were and you’ve seen those. Lakeside for example. Councilman Laufenburger: Yep. Kate Aanenson: Where we’ve changed product. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Kate. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Number 3. No traffic study has been completed to date. Did I just answer that one? Questions remain on the increased traffic. How the City can approve development without one. We talked about that. We’re working on that and we’ll see that with the final plat approval. Mayor Furlong: And I guess just a quick question on that Mr. Oehme. And maybe you have to do the count to get the answer. What does the City of Shorewood estimate in terms of the current traffic counts nd on Strawberry Lane? Or on 62. Do they have those numbers? Are they current? Paul Oehme: It’s my understanding they have not taken traffic counts on Strawberry Lane for quite some time so I wouldn’t even offer up a guess right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Okay. On number 4. Safety. There will be increased traffic on narrow roads with no sidewalks. The present danger to our community especially with students who walk to Minnewashta Elementary. The safety concerns have not been considered by Chanhassen. Again I think we’ve tried to answer that. We’re looking at that traffic study. When we met with Shorewood they talked about the safe routes to school which we’ve employed in other locations where we’ve done safety sidewalk improvements. That’s an option that they’ve talked about for their, what they’ve given for our timeline is 5 years kind of what they’re looking at for that. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate just talk about that. Safe Route to Schools. What is Safe Route to Schools? 12 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: I’ll let the City Engineer address that one. Paul Oehme: Sure, thank you Kate, City Council members. It’s a, actually it’s a federally funded program that’s administrated by the State of Minnesota to help improve routes to school. Safety for pedestrians. It can also be used, that money can be used for studies to potentially leverage more funds for better pedestrian movements. It can be utilized for sidewalks or crossings, trails, those type of things. There’s a whole list of opportunities for improvements. Councilman Laufenburger: You said it’s administered by the State of Minnesota? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Has Chanhassen utilized this Safe Route to Schools program? Paul Oehme: We applied for a grant, was it 4 or 5 years ago for the crossing at Minnewashta Middle School West over on 41. We weren’t selected at that time. Councilman Laufenburger: We were not selected. Paul Oehme: We were not. Councilman Laufenburger: But we still went forward with the plan. Paul Oehme: We did. Councilman Laufenburger: Using our own funds? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Without the Safe Route to Schools. Okay. Kate Aanenson: I think you meant Minnetonka Middle School West. Paul Oehme: I’m sorry, Minnetonka. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, 41. Just south, by Chaska Road right. Paul Oehme: 41. Councilman Laufenburger: Are there any other, have we submitted any other requests for any other safe route to schools? Paul Oehme: Not that I’m aware of. You know a lot of the elementary schools and the public schools that we have here in our community, they have sidewalks already around them and they’re considered safe as compared to some other communities. Councilman Laufenburger: Would there be any, as far as you know would there be any restriction to Shorewood on why they would, that would impede them from applying for this Safe Route to Schools? Paul Oehme: I can’t think of any. 13 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. There’s not like a size of city population or anything like that? Paul Oehme: No, they’re a MSA city so they can, they would be in the pool. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Thank you Mayor. nd Kate Aanenson: Alright. We’re up to number 5. Access to 62 Street. I stand corrected, so it is the 22 foot wide quite rural. Infrastructure is not there to support. I think we’ve addressed that one within the narrowness of the road. Number 6. The proposed development is poorly drained, heavy clay soils. Regarding the water table. This petition says the Planning Commission ignored the difference between the two. I think the City Engineer, Mr. Oehme went through what our intention is to resolve that and make the situation actually better through this development. Number 7. Only residents within 500 of the proposed development were notified. Again the State law is 300 feet. The City of Chanhassen has always gone beyond that. We also put up a sign. We had a lot of good information on our website. As soon as we got it from the developer and the application was in, information was out and available because we did receive calls from people as soon as that sign went up so we do our best to notify people and keep them informed and have tried to share all that information with you and the Planning Commission as we’ve gotten it. Number 8. The Mayor of Shorewood sent a letter that Chanhassen regarding the concerns which were not discussed at the Planning Commission. I can go through those conditions and I apologize if someone things we didn’t directly address them specifically but we did address them. It just didn’t reference that so I’ll just take a minute to go through those. Again this was a letter from the Mayor addressed to myself, Community Development Director. So the proposed intersection with Strawberry Lane should be a T. We concur on that and that’s one of the conditions that we worked through to get that better alignment for sight line. The name Strawberry Court has already been used in the Shorewood street about 2 streets, 2 blocks to the north so the developer is, will change that name. Shorewood would request that the watermains serving the project be interconnected. We agree. We met with the city staff on that issue and it provides better service for both communities for when there’s a demand. Mayor Furlong: Is that interconnection going to be active and open or? Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Or is it just available for future use? Paul Oehme: It’s just emergency purposes. Connection. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. How many other connections do we have with neighboring cities? I know we have, we supply, we supply water to some areas of Shorewood. I know the city of Eden Prairie provides water to areas in Chanhassen. Paul Oehme: Right. We provide water to the city of Victoria. We have emergency connections between Shorewood and Minnetonka and Eden Prairie too. Mayor Furlong: Chaska? Paul Oehme: And Chaska, correct. Yep. Exactly so all our surrounding communities already have emergency connections. This is just another opportunity I think just to isolate this area for potential emergencies down the road. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. 14 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Okay. Again going back to the Mayor’s comments. In light of the density question, 31 versus 62 and Shorewood requested a traffic study. Again it’s not 62. I think I hope everybody’s clear on that but we are working on that traffic study. The developer is. That’s one of the conditions. Number 6. nd West 62 Street should be upgraded to city standards. The street lies within both Shorewood and Chanhassen and I’ll let the, I think the City Engineer commented on that, stating that we want to do this project jointly with the, when the time that Strawberry Lane and Shorewood’s ready to move forward on their street so I think that’s what we conveyed with the Shorewood staff. Mayor Furlong: I think your question, and maybe Mr. Knutson this would be for you. With regard to the number of units, the proposal that’s coming forward here is 31 single family homes. I think the issue that you’ve raised Ms. Aanenson about, which the developer has called next gen are, they’re not duplexes correct? How would you describe them? Are they multiple family? A single unit, multi family? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It doesn’t meet our definition of a single family home so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and so a single family home has just that. A single family as opposed to multi- families. But based upon the plans and everything, these are single family homes. Building duplexes wouldn’t be allowable if this plan forward, correct? Roger Knutson: That’s correct. Not without a rezoning and comp plan change. Mayor Furlong: Okay because that’s not part of what’s being asked for here. Roger Knutson: Right and you’re not approving any housing, building permits tonight. Mayor Furlong: So what’s the, what’s the opportunity legally for someone to get approval for 31 and then switch it to 62 without coming back through a public process? Is that possible legally? Roger Knutson: There is a process seldom used under State law. Anyone may apply for a variance for the temporary use of a one family dwelling unit as a two family dwelling unit as a variance. Mayor Furlong: But that’s a per property. Roger Knutson: Yes, per lot. Mayor Furlong: That would be per lot. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Not a sweeping. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Furlong: Development type of request. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Furlong: And that I think Ms. Aanenson you mentioned is the City of Chanhassen looks at that as an interim use permit? 15 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. Mayor Furlong: Which would be for a time specific under certain conditions. Kate Aanenson: Right. Now the Planning Commission did discuss this item. You know we put it on st their April 1 we always have our annual work session and so we did discuss it and the Planning Commission raised a lot of questions of how they want to handle it going forward. There’s no rush to try to accommodate this type of a product. They want to take their time to study it and see what makes sense and so the only other way it could happen is if in 3 years the City or 2 years the City amended that and there was a vacant lot or something that could apply but that would apply any conditions on any other subdivision. I think they just want to be careful of where it would go. How many should be any subdivision. They had a lot of good questions on that so there’s no rush to do that. We just wanted them informed of the decision between the two so they were aware of that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Then I think number 8 again on the mayor’s letter, Chanhassen’s own LGU for storm water management. We expect the City will require a long term maintenance agreement with proposed drainage facilities. That’s a condition and often times the City takes over those and puts them under the jurisdiction of the City so. Mayor Furlong: So that would be the outlots A, B and C? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think one of them was kind of more tree preservation but yes. Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But A and C I think were the two. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: The ponds. Okay. Kate Aanenson: Alright so that, so that addressed the mayor’s letter and then I’ll go back. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate? Could just. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: You were precise but I think you overlooked number 4. Can you just speak to number 4. Kate Aanenson: Oh I’m sorry, safety? Councilman Laufenburger: No, number 4 on the mayor’s letter. Kate Aanenson: Oh on the mayor’s letter, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I can go back to that. Councilman Laufenburger: We addressed it but you did not speak to number 4 I don’t think as you went through here. Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry, thank you. Oh I did. I appears the developer has paid no particular attention to the drainage. Shorewood would ask that there’s no increase in runoff. 16 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: It’s actually going to be a decrease, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. Yep, and then I said that’s, the City Engineer went through that in a little bit more detail. The French drain and all that, thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. I was not paying close. Kate Aanenson: Okay now I’m back to the petition. The last point if I didn’t miss any. I may have. Number 9. While Chanhassen has said there’s no next generation, not currently allowed they are exploring considerations. Yes. The Planning Commission discussed it to understand the difference between how this is being applied and how our current ordinance works. We’ve had some pressure because our ordinance is punitive in the fact that you have to come up, show economic hardship and that’s one of the only ones that we actually kind of look at that so just thinking about it, again there’s no rush to do that. Again we talked about we’ve entitled this now for the 31 units. There’d have to be a substantial ordinance change and again for an ordinance change does require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the City Council to do that so if we were to make a change, that would be noticed and a hearing and have to be approved by the City Council and then you would decide whether or not that makes sense and under what conditions. So with that I believe I’ve answered all the conditions, or all the questions that were on the petition but again I just want to point out the developer is working to meet all the conditions. He has been meeting with the city engineering staff to go through all those and again just a reminder that this does come back for final plat and we expect a lot of the conditions then to be removed because they have been met. Our typical tracking method is that we’ll put all the conditions in there and we’ll show you which ones have been met or modified. That they have been met so you can track those. Those are also, will be available online too when they come back so with that the staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the variance in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and I’d be happy to answer any other questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Aanenson or Mr. Oehme? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Kate can you, let’s talk about Highway 7 a little bit. I’m not sure if this is you or Mr. Oehme but you showed early on that there are currently 4, I think it must just be gravel road entrances off of Highway 7 and I think there’s no question that the two to the west would be closed but there are two. Kate Aanenson: I’m going the wrong way, sorry. Councilman Laufenburger: There. So those two arrows that reflect those houses, my question is who guides or governs how long those two accesses on Highway 7 will be in place or does their presence today essentially mean that they will always be there? Who governs that? Is that MnDOT or, talk a little bit about that. Kate Aanenson: MnDOT governs that and they have a legal right unless there’s some other access available. You know as we talked about in the staff report, and the city engineer went through those opportunities that we have seen to eliminate that. We always provide that opportunity over time. It may not be today but it may be down the road. Maybe 5 years. 10 years that the traffic really becomes difficult to get in and out of. We’ve always tried to provide that opportunity. We believe that’s good planning. The one I can think of that we did on 41, there was a home on 41. When we did the Longacres plat we took an outlot and provided access. We said some day in the future when this homeowner decides it’s more difficult to get out on 41 with the speeds there and the longer stretch, that’s an opportunity that we acquired for them to get access so we’re doing the same thing here. 17 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: So you, so you provide the opportunity for the homeowner when he or she chooses to not exit onto 41 for example, the example that you used. They exit south towards Longacres and then get onto 41 at Longacres, am I saying that correctly? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: So the same thing here is, you’re essentially the planning of this development, that cul-de-sac extends from Strawberry, from the T in Strawberry Lane extends south and then to the east and it ends, the cul-de-sac ends with plans so that when these two homes choose to, they can get, they can leave their property without going on Highway 7. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Which would potentially be at their peril if they would go on Highway 7. Kate Aanenson: Right. This homeowner right now doesn’t want to but you know we always know that properties change over time and some, a future homeowner may want to, or this property homeowner may want to over time, just as we learned on 41. That took probably 5, 6, 7 years before that homeowner said boy, you know I’d really like to change that. We talked about some of the other changes so this was a connection here so these 4 homes here, when this project came in we provided a private drive. Four homes off of a private drive so these homes all now come off of the end of Landings. Same thing there. Instead of providing this access here for a safer route so we always try to look at those opportunities for access. Safer access and I think that’s what the city engineer was talking about too to reduce those conflicts. When you have turning movements that are not at a certain space apart, that causes conflict. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Just one more question regarding access. Should this plan go forward 31 homes, grading, this is going to be a big construction site. How are the construction vehicles going to get into this site? Kate Aanenson: I’ll let Mr. Oehme speak to that. Councilman Laufenburger: What’s the plan? nd Paul Oehme: So you know the access would be off of 62 and down Church Road. Councilman Laufenburger: Once the development’s completed. Paul Oehme: Once the development, yeah that’s the logical. The spot. We are going to be talking to MnDOT though about maybe a temporary access off of Highway 7. They, in the past they haven’t granted some of those access points for construction purposes but we’re going to ask them at least. See if we can work something out. Mayor Furlong: Do you think there is room for safe turning off of 7 of the big trucks directly onto the property? Paul Oehme: Right and that’s the thing is maybe there’s, especially left turns, I don’t think there is. Maybe if it’s a right-in/right-out type of situation and if the shoulder’s wide enough in that area where they can have an acceleration lane. Maybe there’s an opportunity there. We still have to work through those details yet with MnDOT. 18 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: We wouldn’t be, we want to make sure that it’s safe for the construction vehicles. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: And vehicles on Highway 7. Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: That you don’t have a truck stopping or trying to, a big truck try to accelerate at a 55 miles an hour zone. Paul Oehme: Yep. Exactly. So and that’s the thing that we need to take a look at is, is one of the current access points onto the site is that, is there enough spacing there? Is there enough acceleration lane for a truck to come in and accelerate up to a certain point to try… Mayor Furlong: So you’re going to look at that and if it is then you’ll talk to MnDOT… Paul Oehme: Exactly. Exactly. And I think left turns into the site is going to be out of the question but maybe there’s an opportunity for right-in/right-out’s. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Paul, the first question is for you. You mentioned the drainage that the developer’s going to be installing. I guess I have a little bit of concern with that because you said that it should take care of most of it. I mean are you pretty confident that with the sump pumps and the drainage that the developer’s going to be installing that that’s going to take care of drainage? The drainage issue. Paul Oehme: Yeah, so the City has standards that the ground water has to be so many feet as we know of it underneath the finished floor elevation so we’re looking at those issues and that we think that there is a lot of perched water out here. There is a lot of tight clay like I indicated but there is a seam of sandy layer out here as well that potentially is holding a lot of water that’s giving us some mis-readings in terms of where the ground water is so with the pond that’s going in there and all the drain tile that we’re talking about, not just the French drain but the drain tile in the roadway and then also the infiltration areas that we’re talking about too that eventually will drain into our storm water system. You know we’re anticipating that the whole ground water level in this area is going to be decreased to acceptable level. So we’re not, we don’t, we’re not surmising that we’re going to take care of all the problems. We still anticipate that some of these homes, the homes will have to have sump pumps like 90% of the properties in Chanhassen does but we’re anticipating we’re going to try and take care of most of the problems. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. And then the second one is in regards, and I know the Mayor mentioned it in his letter too that Kate read but he had mentioned that there needs to be a T intersection at Strawberry nd Lane and 62 and it sounds like there’s going to be, right? But as I’m looking at the packet it says there’s going to be an analysis to determine if a T intersection is required. 19 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Paul Oehme: So I think the T intersection is a given. It’s the traffic study that we’re performing right now that is going to tell us if we should put stop signs at each of the three legs of the intersection. That’s really what we’re going to be focused in on. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay so the stop signs are not a given? Kate Aanenson: Yeah Mayor and council if I may. The condition reads, the developer shall do an analysis of the T intersection to determine if warrants a stop condition so. Just as Mr. Oehme said, that’s how it reads. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And maybe I’m looking at an earlier version but condition number 6(a), is that what you’re looking at? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or 6(b) too. Councilwoman Ernst: Right. 6(b). Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 6(b) that will determine if the T intersection would warrant a stop sign. Councilwoman Ernst: It is (a) and (b). Kate Aanenson: It’s (a) and (b). Mayor Furlong: Okay. I’m reading (a) as if, revise the plans to incorporate a T intersection. Kate Aanenson: Correct and then (b) would be, once the T is there. Mayor Furlong: What are they analyzing? Kate Aanenson: If there’s a T intersection. Mayor Furlong: Oh for the stop conditions. Kate Aanenson: Does it warrants stop lights. Stop signs. Mayor Furlong: So that’s the second condition. Kate Aanenson: That’s the second part of it correct. Mayor Furlong: So is it correct that the first condition says it will be a T. Second condition says based upon the traffic count is it warranted to be a three way stop. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, and I thought I’d heard you say there was going to be a stop there and that’s why I was questioning. Mayor Furlong: Based upon the warrants of the study. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, yep. Thank you. 20 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Anything else? Councilwoman Ernst: No. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, any questions at this time? Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Is the applicant here? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Is there anything you’d like to address to the council? Joe Jablonski: Not at this time unless you have questions. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for the applicant from the council at this time? Mr. Laufenburger. Sir, if you don’t mind coming forward. And if you could state your name and address for the record. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Joe Jablonski th representing Lennar, 16305 36 Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, thank you Mr. Jablonski for coming forward, and I’m not sure if this is a question direct to you or to staff but how was this land used or how has it been used for the last number of years and is there any concern about any foreign substances on the land that have to be removed? Have you done any study of anything like that? Joe Jablonski: We have done rather extensive environmental studies on them both through geotechnical soil boring types, as alluded to by the city engineer and site visits and walks by our environmental folks so there has been a fair amount. It has for the last several years been vacant. It’s been used for, there’s been some trespassing for sure but it was a landscape company in the past, or parts of it were used for a landscape company and it doesn’t appear besides typical debris that there’s you know a lot of environmental type issues out there. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And then I would ask Mr. Oehme, is this land in any kind of wetland that we would have to do any kind of environmental impact statement or worksheet? Paul Oehme: I don’t believe there’s any wetland that has to be mitigated through this project. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. Thank you. That was my only question. Thank you Mr. Jablonski. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Appreciate you being here. Thank you. At this time Mr. Johnson you had requested to provide some public comment. Again we had a public hearing at the Planning Commission and we’ve, all of us have seen the Minutes of the Planning Commission. Verbatim Minutes so we’re familiar with what was discussed there but if you have some new or different information. 21 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Patrick Johnson: Yeah and I’m going to try and kind of adjust on the fly here. I had a prepared statement that the residents had all seen beforehand. Obviously some of those have been addressed so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Patrick Johnson: So please forgive me as I try and wing this so to speak. Having spoken with most of the residents I will say that most, although not all are pleased with the desire to invest in our community and support the idea of developing this parcel. There are significant concerns that exist. One concern was on st that public hearing. As you know April 1 was spring break for the Minnetonka School District of which all of us who have kids, or most of us were out of town and unable to attend the hearing. Not being an expert on the Chanhassen process I was not aware that there would be no public hearing otherwise I st would have flown back specifically to be there for that April 1 hearing. So moving onto and we will try not to replay the Planning Commission hearing and the comments but I did want to highlight some things that we’ve been hearing about and are thinking about as a community. The first is in regards to zoning. While the zoning is residential light medium, it was in 2006 that it was rezoned and there was a community group that banded together to say that that probably wasn’t in concert with the community. We are going to be engaging a consultant to review the change in zoning and will likely be back in contact once we identify the consultant. The next gen housing I think it’s been kind of cleared up tonight. The residents are very opposed to the next gen concept. One of the big concerns is that the ordinance could be changed later on down the date, and I know this was addressed but none of us are experts. And then the next gen could then be kind of grandfathered back in after the fact when none of us are looking. The traffic study. It sounds like the traffic study is being done at this time. One of our residents did note that a camera went up this morning. We feel that to make an approval when the cameras went up today, we probably should have further study into the traffic counts and what impact the additional traffic is going to have on the streets before anything should be approved. Safety and roads. You know before any development should be considered I think the safety of the students who travel on Strawberry Lane should be first and foremost. We’re talking about a 22 foot wide road with lots of construction traffic going in. If you think about the amount of dirt and stuff that’s going to come in, building materials into this site with students walking Strawberry Lane to and from school, that’s a very dangerous situation. Already as is. nd Audience: You should include West 62. nd Patrick Johnson: And West 62. I am here to speak for all of the residents per your planning council meeting. We are trying to limit to one representative. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Patrick Johnson: But we do feel that the student’s safety should be 100% identified before any approval is made. These roads are very narrow. There has been development that is going on currently and I know a number of the residents have expressed their concerns about student safety. One of the other concerns is on the outreach. I understand that Chanhassen has gone over and above the 300 feet state minimum for the outreach and gone with 500 feet. In this case, while I appreciate the law and what the purpose of it is, the real impact to the neighborhood here is well outside of 500 feet. You’re looking at Shorewood Oaks Drive where the majority of traffic will be entering. You’re looking at all of Strawberry Lane because all nd the traffic is going to be traveling along that route to Minnewashta and you have 62 Street as well as Church Road. With the exception of Church Road, all of these streets are considerably narrower than the site and when you talk about having let’s say two dump trucks passing each other, there’s not much room. I know there have been some discussions very recently with Shorewood in regards to the planning process. As of last Thursday night when I met with the mayor and the planner, it didn’t sound like any of those communications had happened so we feel that we probably should hold, we should have more 22 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 communication between Shorewood and Chanhassen before we go ahead and figure out that we’ve resolved all the different traffic issues and safety issues on those roads. As far as drainage, you know we hear the proposal to do it. It doesn’t sound like it’s going to fix all problems. Might make for some of the residents on Church Road better but I would suggest that maybe some additional study needs to be done with the Shorewood planners. I can tell you that the development that is under construction right now, under a block away, there is a significant drainage system that was put in and it would be I think a very logical idea to get some people out there to look at that drainage system. How it’s performing because it’s so close to the site and with the spring runoff, right now the water is at a very high level and probably could be some useful information for the applicant and the City of Chanhassen. You guys did go through our letter from today. Feel free to also ask us any questions. The community has kind of come together and consolidated all of our feedback for you. We also have created a community website so that we can all be on the same page. It’s BoulderCove.info and as we go through this process we’ll be using that as a community to speak with one voice. And finally, the final point that I wanted to make is, I’m not sure how many of you saw the article in the Star Tribune this past weekend but just last week the Edina Planning Commission was in a similar situation with a project that bordered a neighboring community such as this. Richfield sent a letter to Edina and I quote, we would like Edina to treat Richfield residents as it would it’s own residents. Edina agreed and denied the applicant the approval on the project because the impact was just too great on their neighbors. In the Edina case the main concern was sunlight. The concerns on this are far greater and involve students. We ask that the Chanhassen City Council follow Edina’s lead as a good neighbor and deny this proposal after which we would like to collaboratively work as residents of one community, Shorewood, Chanhassen and the existing community to make sure that the development of Highway 7 be in concert with the existing neighborhood and safe for the students. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Johnson. Any follow up questions to Mr. Johnson? Councilman Laufenburger: I had one. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah. I wonder Mr. Johnson. Patrick Johnson: Yep, sorry. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. What areas of neighborhoods are you, do you feel that you’re representing? Or this, that are part of this. Give me kind of a. Patrick Johnson: I would say the neighbors that we have been in communication with and have received feedback from include the development of Shorewood Oaks, the residents of Strawberry Lane from kind of. Councilman Laufenburger: All the way north to the elementary school? Patrick Johnson: We solicited feedback by stuffing mailboxes with information about our website and contained contact information. Without going back and looking through all my emails I can’t tell you exactly how far it was before you know somebody was not in communication. Mayor Furlong: Just to clarify though, Shorewood Oaks is the neighborhood to the northeast of this property, is that correct? Patrick Johnson: Yep. 23 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: Let me ask it a different way. Are there people that you would say are in your coalition group that are, that heard about this not from Chanhassen but from other people in the neighborhood? Patrick Johnson: Yes. Absolutely. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, that clarifies that. Patrick Johnson: If I may I would like to point out that the sign, which was posted on the site borders Highway 7. The majority of people who live in these neighborhoods work closer into the metropolitan area and enter the neighborhood through Shorewood Oaks Drive and never saw the sign. Councilman Laufenburger: As opposed to Church Road. Patrick Johnson: I think in hindsight it would have been better to put that proposed development sign or maybe two of them right at where the T intersection is going to be. Councilman Laufenburger: But it sounds like what you’re describing is the views of people who not only receive a correspondence from Chanhassen who may have seen the sign, but also those who you and other neighbors reached out to and said this is, look at what’s planning here so it looks like though we, in using your words we could have been more effective or more efficient in our communication, clearly it got to a lot of people. Is that true? You’re hesitant in saying yes. I’m wondering why. Patrick Johnson: Because I am speaking for a group and I don’t want to misrepresent the group of people who have enlisted their trust in me to speak tonight. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Well they’ve enlisted their trust in an articulate man so. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Johnson, do you have anything else? Councilman Laufenburger: I did have one other. Mayor Furlong: Please. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah. To what development are you referring when you talk about the development one block away? Maybe you can identify where you live. Mayor Furlong: Or where the. Councilman Laufenburger: Or where this development is. Patrick Johnson: Yep. The easiest thing would be to approach a monitor although I don’t know if I’m reaching any sort of. Kate Aanenson: Yep, you can just tell me where. So this is the subject site. This is Strawberry Lane. There’s the elementary school. Patrick Johnson: If you come back south from the elementary school and go to the gravel bicycle trail. Councilman Laufenburger: Got it. The trail which goes… 24 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Patrick Johnson: Which crosses diagonally across Strawberry Lane. Councilman Laufenburger: Yep. Yes. Patrick Johnson: You see there is a shorter, the shortest cul-de-sac that is directly off of that. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, and that cul-de-sac goes to the east. Patrick Johnson: And that cul-de-sac goes to the east. Councilman Laufenburger: Is that the development? Patrick Johnson: That is the development. There are 7 half acre lots of which there is one completed residence and there are 4 residences under construction at this time. The drainage system is all in and currently if you go out and visit the site behind 5 of the 7 lots you will very actively see how the drainage system is working, and I know you mentioned that it is the proposed solution comes to a 100 year flood. I don’t think that this year was 100 year flood event by any means but we are right up against the kind of the limits of the drainage system and from all purposes, and I would defer to Shorewood to say, to give their opinion on how that drainage system is working. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. That was my questions. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Johnson, quick question. Since you’re more familiar with the area than I am. Along Strawberry Lane, in addition to that development of 6 or 7 homes you just mentioned there’s been some recent construction of homes along Strawberry Lane itself. Recent within the last 3 to 5 years, is that a fair statement? Patrick Johnson: Yes. My familiarity with this site is relatively new. I am one of those new residents within the 7 acre development. The 7 residence development. I am a recent, I’ll call it a boomerang from Minnesota. I returned back from Minnesota after being on the east coast for 17 years so my knowledge of this particular area is not probably as robust as some of the other residents. Mayor Furlong: So you live in the new development. Patrick Johnson: I live in the new development. Mayor Furlong: East of Strawberry Lane there and I guess maybe some of the other residents by nodding heads or shaking them, there have been some new construction of homes along Strawberry Lane over the last few years. I’m seeing some heads go up and down. So just 2. Audience: Yes. Mayor Furlong: It looked like on the west side towards the southern end of the road, just 2? Okay. I thought it appeared more. Audience: Well within the last 3 years. Mayor Furlong: 3 to 5 or so I mean. Audience: Yeah so later there was a few more, yeah. 25 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Okay, before that. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Patrick Johnson: Sure. Thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Let’s bring it back to council for additional questions of staff, if there are any. Otherwise thoughts or comments on the proposal before us. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’d like to address the attorney and have him specifically explain to us what we are here to address tonight and what we are really looking at as a council. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. You have two issues. First is a preliminary plat and the issue in that plat is, do they meet the current requirements of the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance. And if the answer to those questions is yes, then that’s your answer. And you also have before you a variance. Does it meet the standards of a variance? Again this is a preliminary plat. The final plat will come back to you. It’s typical that you impose conditions on preliminary plat approval as staff is recommending and you look and see whether those conditions are met at the time of final plat approval. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the variance is regarding the cul-de-sac. The length of the cul-de-sac. Roger Knutson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah the length of the cul-de-sac. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, yeah. Length of the cul-de-sac. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other thoughts or questions? I guess one of the issues Ms. Aanenson that came up, Mr. Johnson was regard to the land use and reviewing the land use. The current guiding, what’s the current zoning and is that the same as what’s being requested? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: What’s the current zoning? Kate Aanenson: It’s just a different lot configuration than. Mayor Furlong: So is it currently zoned LRM? Or what is the current zoning? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: RLM. Mayor Furlong: RLM, thank you. Kate Aanenson: Yeah so it’s presently zoned Residential Low Medium density so and it’s consistent with the guiding which allows up to the 4 units so it’s consistent with both those. We’re not asking for a rezoning at this time. 26 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: So there is no rezoning. It’s already zoned. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: That use. That’s consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan doesn’t show a different type of use. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the question is that allows up to 4 units and they’re actually closer to 2. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: With this proposal. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Well actually for gross. For the net would be 3.99, correct. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: For the net would be 3.99. Mayor Furlong: And does the up to 4 deal with net or gross? Kate Aanenson: The net. Mayor Furlong: The net. So they’re within the allowable range. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: I’d just point out some things brought up. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Roger Knutson: When you’re talking about changing your Comprehensive Plan or rezoning property, that’s legislative rather than quasi judicial. Legislative means you’re making policy. Quasi judicial like you’re doing here is you’re applying the existing law to the facts and see whether the law is met and I’d point out the reference to what happened in Edina. First that was the Planning Commission making a recommendation. Not a decision to the City Council and I’d also point out in the Edina situation they need both a comp plan, Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning which are legislative. Mayor Furlong: And the Comprehensive Plan would be change the guiding. Comprehensive Plan amendment would be change the guiding from current zoning or guiding to something else. Roger Knutson: Change the zoning. Mayor Furlong: And change the zoning. Roger Knutson: Yes. 27 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Here there’s no change to zoning or change in Comprehensive Plan. Roger Knutson: That’s correct. There it’s legislative decisions that must be made. Here it is not. It’s quasi judicial. You’re applying existing law to the facts. Mayor Furlong: The variance for clarification is more of a legislative policy. Roger Knutson: No. Mayor Furlong: Or that is also. Roger Knutson: That is also quasi judicial because there’s standards in the ordinance when you’re entitled to that variance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: And then you apply the facts. Look at the facts and say do they meet the criteria in the ordinance. You’re not legislative. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: One more legal question. We’re going to get our money’s worth tonight from Roger. Can you review again the new or the existing policy when it comes to variances and the parameters council should use when it comes to that? Roger Knutson: It’s a very confusing subject. What we’ve been talking, what’s been very confusing for the last 3 or 4 years when the change of standards from, is a zoning variance. This is a subdivision variance. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Roger Knutson: So the question is, is there justification basically for this? Is there something unique about this property that justifies a longer cul-de-sac? Kate Aanenson: So the standards are. Mayor Furlong: Did you get your legal answer? Kate Aanenson: The standards are somewhat different when you do it with a subdivision as opposed to a straight variance I think is what he’s trying to say. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yep, no I followed. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: So that, excuse me. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions Councilwoman Tjornhom? Mr. Laufenburger. 28 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Councilman Laufenburger: So Councilwoman Tjornhom her question begs the question, what’s the justification for going from an 800 foot cul-de-sac to a 1,200 foot cul-de-sac. Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Sure. As stated in our findings the hardship is not just, is not a mere inconvenience. The staff recommended this because we think it’s good policy long term not to have two driveways access out onto Highway 7 so the, we believe that the longer cul-de-sac’s going to promote public safety in the future when those driveways have the opportunity to reconnect so they will provide the stub with sewer and water so if those people want to, they’re on septic and well, want to connect onto municipal services and have access the other way, that opportunity exists. They may not want to seize that opportunity today but we’re providing it in the future to promote safety. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. What does the impact of moving from the okey dokey 800 foot cul- de-sac to a variance required 1,200. What’s the impact of that to the developer? Kate Aanenson: The cul-de-sac could be shortened and lots could be put on the end of that. I’d have to let their engineer speak to the lot configuration on that but if it was shortened up additional lots could be put on the end of the cul-de-sac. Right now it just terminates at the property line. Councilman Laufenburger: So this, really the driving factor here is to allow for public safety for those two homes on whatever the address is on Highway 7. To give them the opportunity to safely exit their home, their property via the cul-de-sac versus the Highway 7 which traffic over time will increase. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct Commissioner Laufenburger. Actually the same condition applied when we did the previous application. We saw that same opportunity to make the longer cul-de-sac. Councilman Laufenburger: Yep. I had another question. Kate I think this is for you. I look at this, the recommendation and as our attorney has spoken that this is a preliminary plat that has a number of conditions and it’s the developer’s responsibility to meet these conditions. I count clearly more than, there’s probably 50 conditions in various categories. Is it possible that these conditions may become too onerous for the developer or do you already have indication that the developer is prepared to comply with these? Kate Aanenson: They have been meeting with the engineering department and it’s our understanding that they can meet those conditions. It’s going to take some tweaking on the project so we believe that they can be met. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: If they can’t then it would prohibit them from going forward. Councilman Laufenburger: Clearly these conditions, each of them, categories 1 through I think it’s 8. No 7, all of those conditions must be met at time of the council approving the final plat. Kate Aanenson: Correct. And they’d be incorporated, some of them may be incorporated into the development contract but yes, they would be required to meet those. Again I just want to be clear on that. When it comes back for final plat we always like to show you all the original conditions and sometimes they get modified. They get changed to something else but they would, so you can track to see how we addressed each one specifically. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. 29 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: I was just going to say, there are times where there are modifications to some of the conditions. Either it no longer applies or based upon additional information, such as traffic counts, if there’s a different condition, or the condition is modified, based upon the additional information that’s gathered between the time of the preliminary plat approval and the final application. Councilman Laufenburger: But clearly we’re not cutting a ribbon on this development right now. I mean this is a, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done before this. We’re essentially giving the developer permission to move forward with their current plan subject to meeting the conditions. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are those comments or any other comments you’d like to make? And we’ll try to keep moving along. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay that’s. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: I would only conclude by saying that, I thought a lot about this related to Shorewood and Chanhassen. We as a body, we really have no jurisdiction over Shorewood. You know our responsibility is this community Chanhassen and yes we want to be good neighbors but that Shorewood hasn’t you know widened 22, or widened the 22 foot Strawberry Lane or 62, I’m sorry but that’s not my responsibility I don’t believe so I would support this project going forward at this time subject to the conditions being met. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts and comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah I’m prepared to support the project too because I am here tonight to vote on whether or not it has met our standards when it comes to development and also if the variance makes sense and I agree that both, I can support both of those issues and while like I said I am, I am sympathetic with Shorewood and their concerns about safety and I’m optimistic that our engineer and our city staff will work with Shorewood city staff to kind of hopefully come up with a solution. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst, comments. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah I would support this project too. The only thing that I would say is, I’m not totally convinced that the drainage issue is resolved and so whatever we can do to follow up on that and make sure that you know we’re not going to have an issue there. But I’ll definitely support the project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. One clarification Ms. Aanenson on condition 5(a) I think where it talks about those next generation homes. Do you have some proposed wording on the type of, multi, I don’t know what, what does our ordinances prohibit? Kate Aanenson: Yeah I think the correct way to put that is that any plans that describe the next generation homes are not permitted under current city ordinances. Mayor Furlong: But what are the, what’s the, what is the next generation in terms of a type of home that doesn’t, what does our ordinance prohibit? 30 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Kate Aanenson: That’s why I left it. That’s why I left, I did get specific language from the city attorney so I think the way we felt it should be reworded would be any plans describing or showing next generation should not be included because they don’t meet the current ordinance so we’re saying, so they’d be, those are all attached with the application so we’re just referencing what was included in the application. Mayor Furlong: In the application so we’re saying that the, that that aspect of the application that’s inconsistent with our ordinances is excluded from approval. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And obviously if something prohibits an ordinance it’s not allowed anyway. We don’t have to make a condition that they have to apply with ordinances because they already do. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Right. Roger Knutson: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so what this is doing. Kate Aanenson: So that should be modified. If you want to modify that condition. Mayor Furlong: Right, condition 5(a) to read. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and we can have for the Scribner the, taking the Minutes here that that condition be 5(a) be noted that any plans describing and attached as next generation homes are not permitted with this application or current ordinance because they’re consistent with the current ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think when we look at the issues that are before the council as our, and I appreciate Councilwoman Tjornhom’s clarifying question of the City Attorney as to what are we being asked to decide here is whether or not the, whether or not the proposal, the development meets the zoning and subdivision ordinances and whether or not the variance application meets the standards for that. I think from things that we’ve heard tonight they do. It’s not a change of zoning. It’s the current zoning. From everything I’ve seen in the staff report and other information is that they do meet the standards of our Comprehensive Plan and our ordinances. With regard to the variance I think extending the cul-de-sac in order to avoid a connection on Highway 7 is of value for public safety. You know knowing the traffic and turning in and out and sometimes exiting from Shorewood Oaks, or anywhere along Highway 7 there, that can be a challenge sometimes with the speed of traffic so the less traffic, less points of access along Highway 7 and concentrating traffic where we can, it’s been a long time, and for the benefit of the Shorewood residents, it’s a long time objective of the City of Chanhassen to seek a stop light at the intersection of Church and Highway 7, Minnewashta Parkway. One of our challenges there is it doesn’t meet warrants for the State of Minnesota, for MnDOT to approve that. We have a similar desire and work that we’re doing at the southern end of Minnewashta Parkway at Highway 5 to try to get a stop light there as well. Both of those places need, both of those intersections, a stop light will improve safety and one of the things that we did recently with the Highway 5 improvements along the Arboretum is we eliminated accesses along Highway 5 and directed traffic. We had multiple driveways there and directed traffic, and an access of right-in/right-out access for the neighbors and we directed it all to Minnewashta Parkway. Long term the most traffic you have accessing those major roads at the major intersections, the safer it’s going to be for everybody and it will provide the opportunity some day I believe to provide a 31 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 signal, which will obviously be a safer way to come out onto Highway 7 from the north and to go east. I nd think this development from a safety standpoint, traffic safety at the intersection of Strawberry Lane, 62 and the new development will be improved with that T intersection and if the traffic counts support the 3 way stop, I noticed in the comments at the Planning Commission that there was concern about people going around that. It’s not even a curve. It’s a 90 degree turn. It’s a corner. Going too fast can be a problem so if this development helps improve the safety at that intersection by adding stop signs, and warranting the stop signs, that will actually be a benefit I think for everybody. Drainage is an issue in this area. I’m familiar in knowing people that live in the area that the water table is very high. It’s a wet area so drainage will be an issue. It’s not going to go away but I’m pleased at least with the plans that they are directing, they’re reducing the amount of drainage, normal natural drainage going north, directing it south and managing that and I think that’s again an improvement. Is it perfect? Very few developments are. There will be a change. There certainly will be more traffic but if it can be, if the traffic can be channeled safely and, or improved safely, safety as well as improving the drainage I think there’s a benefit here. Again getting back to the issues before us tonight, the property owners have a right to develop their property as long as they do it within the rules and within the ordinances and everything I’ve seen and heard tonight tells me that this plan does that with the conditions in place to insure that they do it correctly so with that I too will be supporting the proposal this evening but, with regard to Mr. Johnson’s comments about our two cities working together. Absolutely. We’re certainly happy to do that at any time and we do meet regularly with our neighbors. Our cities and that’s certainly something that we can do. I think what we’re seeing here, and we saw it earlier. Many residents here tonight probably didn’t see it but we just had the flip side of a development in Shorewood that was going to be accessing off a Chanhassen Road. It was Hummingbird Lane in Chanhassen and there we’re dealing with a narrower road but I think what we have is a lot of the older neighborhoods along north and south of Highway 7, those roads are not developed to our current standards and what we find, as much as the city engineers want to build new wider roads because they’re safer for everybody, sometimes there’s resistance to doing that when we go through the reconstruction so I think that’s where all of us can look to say when it’s time to make some improvements, that we can all look to do, to give a little bit so we can get a safer roads for everybody involved and I think we would all support that so, with that I would certainly, unless there are other comments, entertain a motion. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: I move that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Boulder Cove Subdivision with a variance subject to the conditions of the staff report with modification to condition 5(a) as noted earlier and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact. Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that? Seeing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 approves outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac as shown on the plans received March 4, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact: 32 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 1.Park and Recreation Conditions: a.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city’s 2014 single-family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Boulder Cove would be $179,800. 2.Environmental Resources Conditions: a.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the drip line for tree #71. A layer of woodchips shall be installed over the root zone to a depth of 3-4 inches. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. b.No trees shall be planted within the public right-of-way. Front yard trees shall be located inside the setback area. c.Additional tree species shall be added to the plant schedule in order to reduce the percentage attributed to spruce so that no more than one-third of the trees are from any one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family and must be overstory species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted is 166. d.There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and the proposed fence. e.Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted. f.Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of the property owner where the tree is located. g.Applicant shall correct the tree inventory for the following trees:  Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy.  Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE.  Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate.  Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be noted as REMOVE. 3.Building Department conditions: 33 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 a.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. c.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. d.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. e.Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on-site septic systems, wells, etc. required. Permits required, as applicable. f.If applicable, existing home(s) affected by new street will require address changes. 4.Fire Marshal conditions: a.Three feet of clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. b.Fire hydrants must be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. c.Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction. d.Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction. e.No burning permits will be issued for the removal of brush, trees. 5.Planning Department Conditions: a.Any plans showing or describing “Next Generation” homes should not be included because they are not permitted under current city ordinances. b.A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be approved by Xcel Energy. 6.Engineering Department Conditions: a.The developer must work with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood to nd revise the plans to incorporate a “T” intersection at 62 Street, Strawberry Lane, and Strawberry Court. b.The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the “T” intersection would warrant a stop condition. c.If a stop condition is warranted, the developer shall have a traffic engineer collect and analyze traffic counts on 62nd Street to determine the queuing effects at the intersection. 34 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 d.Other details such as transitioning from a 31-foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22-foot wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal. e.The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and the street must be restored. f.The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in conjunction with the site improvements as proposed. g.Based on the proposed preliminary plan the developer must provide a sanitary sewer service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530 Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the property. h.Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap into the existing 12-inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. i.Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main in the southwest corner of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe. j.A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane. k.The developer proposes to extend 6-inch water main to the east to provide service to 3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to complete this work. l.All existing and proposed off-site drainage and utility easements must be referenced accordingly. m.Existing off-site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which they were dedicated. n.Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 7.Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: 35 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 a.Show the extent of the shoreland overlay district for Lake Minnewashta on the plan set before final plat approval. b.The applicant must demonstrate the extent of tree preservation for stormwater volume reduction credit by overlaying grading limits on a current aerial photograph before final plat approval. c.The applicant must recalculate the volume reduction credit from new tree plantings without the use of ornamental trees before final plat approval. The current best information is that elevation is at least 969.5 to approximately 972. d.The filtration feature shall be moved so that the bounce within the basin remains entirely within the outlot before final plat approval. e.A homeowners association shall be created and shall be responsible for the maintenance of the filtration feature. The outlet pipe shall be the responsibility of the city. f.An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed for the filtration feature indicating how the HOA will maintain the feature and assure its proper function. g.The landscape plan shall be updated to include the planting schedule for the infiltration basin and the outlots and to provide shrubs or other buffering measures between the rear yard lines and the filtration feature before final plat approval. h.The pond in Outlot A shall be redesigned such that the likely seasonally high water table is at or below the modeled normal water level. i.Additional hydrogeological data provided and attested to by a licensed professional in hydrogeology or similar may be used to show that the above condition is met. j.All recommendations relating to subgrade improvements, preparations and drainage as well as dewatering and drainage control from the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be implemented. k.The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval. l.Environmental manholes or 4-foot sump manholes with SAFL baffles shall be installed at CBMH1 and CBMH3. m.A concerted effort shall be made to combine the outfall into the Pond in Outlot A such that there is only one outfall. If it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, then documentation supporting this assertion shall be provided to city staff prior to final plat approval. n.A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment before final plat approval. 36 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 o.Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $84,146.45. This connection charge will be due at the time of final plat. p.In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal, state and local regulations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations this evening? Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Mayor and council members, I had the honor and privilege of attending on the Mayor’s behalf yesterday evening’s banquet put on by the Chanhassen District, excuse me the District 112 Foundation. This is a foundation that is primarily responsible, it’s an independent organization. Independent of Eastern Carver County School Districts and one of their primary objectives is to recognize excellence in teaching amongst the 800 teachers in Eastern Carver County schools and I was there as a representative of the Mayor’s office and I introduced Candice Gallipo. He’s the woman on the left holding the plaque. She was awarded the District 112 Teacher of the Year. She’s a Chanhassen High School counselor. Remarkable young woman with her roots in South Dakota and came to the Twin Cities, specifically Chaska High School 28 years ago by way of the small community of Coleridge, Nebraska so she made a circuitous route but she’s been devoted to the kids in District 112 for the last 28 years and she, do you want to go to the next slide please Kate. She along with 5 other members of the District 112 staff were all recognized as finalist and she was by a nose, she edged out the other 5. The other 5 candidates. Anyway it was a pleasure to serve on your behalf Mayor and. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for doing that. Councilman Laufenburger: And Mayor O’Connor or Osterdyk and Windschitl were all there asking me what in the world you were doing yesterday. Anyway, so thank you for that opportunity. Mayor Furlong: No, thank you and I know Candice has been active working with the Rotary. With the Strive program. Councilman Laufenburger: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Which you’re probably familiar with at Chanhassen High School so congratulations to her. That’s wonderful. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah it was, the Tweeter feed from Tim Dorway, the Principal was very active right at the time of the announcing the awards. It was a good event. Well attended. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for being there. Other thoughts and comments. Had a chance to make a presentation to the Buy Chanhassen group subsequent to our last council meeting which was fun. I appreciate Laurie Hokkanen, thank you for your help in helping with the presentation and being there and keeping me on track on things to say but that’s a good group and it’s always fun to get together with them 37 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 as well and Mr. Laufenburger was there and city staff. Mr. McDonald so we were well represented as well so thank you for everybody that participated in that. If there’s no other council presentations, administrative presentations. Ms. Hokkanen. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Laurie Hokkanen: Sure, just a few things to share with you tonight. I wanted to let everybody know that if they can’t be here in the chambers with us but they’re interested in the outcome of an item, they can follow us on Twitter. Our Twitter handle is @City of Chan, MN. You don’t need a Twitter account to view those. I know sometimes people are just interested in a particular item. Secondly I wanted to thank the members of our community that gave blood here at City Hall last Wednesday. We collected 29 pints of blood for the Red Cross. The Red Cross has had a very hard winter. The equivalent of 3 full days were lost to weather so those people that are coming out this spring to donate are really appreciated. Speaking of Buy Chanhassen, they are having another lunch meeting next Tuesday. Joel Johnson will be speaking on, I didn’t write the topic down. An MBA. He teaches an MBA course and he’s going to adapt that for a business community. I’ve heard really good things about his presentation. That is open to the public. The Beyond the Yellow Ribbon group, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie are banding together to have a send off breakfast for our high school students who are joining the military. That’s Saturday, May th 10. The council is all invited to come. We’re reaching out to high school students through our high school counselors and they’ve been wonderful to work with but if there’s anybody out there that knows a student that’s joining they can contact me directly for more information. And then lastly I just want to note that registration for summer programs is open. It’s been open for a couple weeks but people aren’t always thinking about that when it’s not 75 and sunny out and they’re disappointed when they find that those programs have filled so if that’s on your to do list, I’d encourage people to start working on it. Mayor Furlong: And would they go to the City website or how do they go about doing that? Laurie Hokkanen: Absolutely. Just our main website. They can just, probably easiest to just Google City of Chanhassen if they don’t have our URL memorized and they can register directly on our website. If they don’t have good internet access or don’t feel comfortable doing that, we take registrations in the mail and in person too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you. Any questions for Ms. Hokkanen for this or other city staff? No? Very good. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah just that Kate, I thought that you overview of the Planning Commission for the last year and plus the historical records of everything is just very valuable. It’s important for us to recognize how Chanhassen has changed over time and from what you presented it was a wonderful kind of a snapshot and I look forward for the discussion about that later this year. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I also want to note that we did put the modified Met Council population projections. Our numbers changed. They were lower so they were able to increase that so I appreciate that. We’re going to add a few things to next year. I think sometimes we spend a lot of time on code enforcement that kind of goes under the radar. Some of those longer terms so we’re going to add but I appreciate your comments on that. Thank you. 38 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong: Any other comments on the correspondence packet? Seeing none, 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 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 39