Loading...
City Council Packet 4-28-14AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM SouthWest Transit Updates, Len Simich sw transit.pdf 6:00 pm - Joint Meeting with the Park & Recreation Commission prc joint meeting.pdf Review Solicitor's Ordinance and Licenses solicitor ord.pdf REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Arbor Day in Chanhassen, May 3: Invitation to Arbor Day Celebration invite to arbor day.pdf Presentation of Arbor Day Poster Contest Winners arbor day poster contest.pdf Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Commissioners: certificates of appreciation.pdf Steve Withrow, Planning Commission Ryan Lynch, Park & Recreation Commission Youth Representative CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City Council action is based on staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. Approval of City Council Minutes dated April 14, 2014 04 -14 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc.pdf Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated April 15, 2014 04 -15 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 04 -15 -14 -pc.pdf Well #15: Approve Consultant Contract with BARR Engineering. well 15 award consultant contract.pdf Approve Mileage Designation to the Municipal State Aid System, PW004. msa mileage designation.pdf TH 101 Minnesota River Crossing Project: Concurrence of Bids. mn river crossing project bids.pdf Approve Temporary On -Sale Liquor License Request, St. Hubert Catholic Community, May 27 st hubert liquor.pdf Approve Resolution Proclaiming May 3 as Arbor Day in Chanhassen arbor day proclamation.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda. Tanner Burns, Power Hill Park Eagle Scout Project (verbal) LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE Lt. Jeff Enevold, Carver County Sheriff's Office sheriffs report.pdf Assistant Chief Cori Wallis, Chanhassen Fire Department fire report.pdf PUBLIC HEARINGS 2014 Street Reconstruction Project: Assessment Hearing. 2014 street reconstruction project.pdf Proposal for the Issuance of a Housing and Health Care Revenue Refunding Note, Presbyterian Homes and Services, Lake Minnetonka Campus Project presbyterian homes.pdf NEW BUSINESS Dakota Retail, 7910 Dakota Avenue and the Adjacent Parcel to the West, Applicant: Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group/Owner: Center Companies, LLC Request for Preliminary Plat Review to Combine Two Parcels into One Lot of Approximately Two Acres Zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH); and Site Plan Review with Variances for an 8,000 Sq. Ft. Retail Building. dakota retail.pdf Resolution of Support for Contamination Cleanup Grant Application sinclair cleanup grant.pdf Extension of Purchase Agreement with Center Companies sinclair purchase agreement.pdf Arbor Cove, 3121 Westwood Drive, Applicant: Dogwood Road, LLC/Owner: Westwood Church: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment of 3.26 Acres from Public/Semi -Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 Acres from Office Institutional District (OI) to Single Family Residential (RSF); and Preliminary Plat Review of 54.67 Acres into 5 Lots. arbor cove.pdf COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET correspondence packet.pdf ADJOURNMENT GUIDE FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations . 1.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3.Limit your comments to 5 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the council. 4.During Visitor Presentations, the council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion, or request. 5.Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the public are welcome. A.5:30 P.M. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: 3. Documents: B.7:00 P.M. C. D. 1. a. Documents: b. Documents: 2. Documents: a. b. E. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: 3. Documents: 4. Documents: 5. Documents: 6. Documents: 7. Documents: F. 1. G. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: H. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: I. 1. a. Documents: b. Documents: c. Documents: 2. Documents: J. K. L. Documents: M. AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOMSouthWest Transit Updates, Len Simichsw transit.pdf6:00 pm - Joint Meeting with the Park & Recreation Commissionprc joint meeting.pdfReview Solicitor's Ordinance and Licensessolicitor ord.pdfREGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSCALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSArbor Day in Chanhassen, May 3:Invitation to Arbor Day Celebrationinvite to arbor day.pdfPresentation of Arbor Day Poster Contest Winnersarbor day poster contest.pdfPresentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Commissioners:certificates of appreciation.pdfSteve Withrow, Planning CommissionRyan Lynch, Park & Recreation Commission Youth RepresentativeCONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City Council action is based on staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. Approval of City Council Minutes dated April 14, 2014 04 -14 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc.pdf Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated April 15, 2014 04 -15 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 04 -15 -14 -pc.pdf Well #15: Approve Consultant Contract with BARR Engineering. well 15 award consultant contract.pdf Approve Mileage Designation to the Municipal State Aid System, PW004. msa mileage designation.pdf TH 101 Minnesota River Crossing Project: Concurrence of Bids. mn river crossing project bids.pdf Approve Temporary On -Sale Liquor License Request, St. Hubert Catholic Community, May 27 st hubert liquor.pdf Approve Resolution Proclaiming May 3 as Arbor Day in Chanhassen arbor day proclamation.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda. Tanner Burns, Power Hill Park Eagle Scout Project (verbal) LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE Lt. Jeff Enevold, Carver County Sheriff's Office sheriffs report.pdf Assistant Chief Cori Wallis, Chanhassen Fire Department fire report.pdf PUBLIC HEARINGS 2014 Street Reconstruction Project: Assessment Hearing. 2014 street reconstruction project.pdf Proposal for the Issuance of a Housing and Health Care Revenue Refunding Note, Presbyterian Homes and Services, Lake Minnetonka Campus Project presbyterian homes.pdf NEW BUSINESS Dakota Retail, 7910 Dakota Avenue and the Adjacent Parcel to the West, Applicant: Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group/Owner: Center Companies, LLC Request for Preliminary Plat Review to Combine Two Parcels into One Lot of Approximately Two Acres Zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH); and Site Plan Review with Variances for an 8,000 Sq. Ft. Retail Building. dakota retail.pdf Resolution of Support for Contamination Cleanup Grant Application sinclair cleanup grant.pdf Extension of Purchase Agreement with Center Companies sinclair purchase agreement.pdf Arbor Cove, 3121 Westwood Drive, Applicant: Dogwood Road, LLC/Owner: Westwood Church: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment of 3.26 Acres from Public/Semi -Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 Acres from Office Institutional District (OI) to Single Family Residential (RSF); and Preliminary Plat Review of 54.67 Acres into 5 Lots. arbor cove.pdf COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET correspondence packet.pdf ADJOURNMENT GUIDE FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations . 1.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3.Limit your comments to 5 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the council. 4.During Visitor Presentations, the council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion, or request. 5.Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the public are welcome. A.5:30 P.M.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:B.7:00 P.M.C.D.1.a.Documents:b.Documents:2.Documents:a.b.E. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: 3. Documents: 4. Documents: 5. Documents: 6. Documents: 7. Documents: F. 1. G. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: H. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: I. 1. a. Documents: b. Documents: c. Documents: 2. Documents: J. K. L. Documents: M. AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOMSouthWest Transit Updates, Len Simichsw transit.pdf6:00 pm - Joint Meeting with the Park & Recreation Commissionprc joint meeting.pdfReview Solicitor's Ordinance and Licensessolicitor ord.pdfREGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSCALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSArbor Day in Chanhassen, May 3:Invitation to Arbor Day Celebrationinvite to arbor day.pdfPresentation of Arbor Day Poster Contest Winnersarbor day poster contest.pdfPresentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Commissioners:certificates of appreciation.pdfSteve Withrow, Planning CommissionRyan Lynch, Park & Recreation Commission Youth RepresentativeCONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City Council action is based on staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report.Approval of City Council Minutes dated April 14, 201404-14 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc.pdfReceive Planning Commission Minutes dated April 15, 201404-15 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 04 -15 -14 -pc.pdfWell #15: Approve Consultant Contract with BARR Engineering.well 15 award consultant contract.pdfApprove Mileage Designation to the Municipal State Aid System, PW004.msa mileage designation.pdfTH 101 Minnesota River Crossing Project: Concurrence of Bids.mn river crossing project bids.pdfApprove Temporary On -Sale Liquor License Request, St. Hubert Catholic Community, May 27st hubert liquor.pdfApprove Resolution Proclaiming May 3 as Arbor Day in Chanhassenarbor day proclamation.pdfVISITOR PRESENTATIONSSee guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda.Tanner Burns, Power Hill Park Eagle Scout Project (verbal)LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATELt. Jeff Enevold, Carver County Sheriff's Officesheriffs report.pdfAssistant Chief Cori Wallis, Chanhassen Fire Departmentfire report.pdfPUBLIC HEARINGS2014 Street Reconstruction Project: Assessment Hearing. 2014 street reconstruction project.pdf Proposal for the Issuance of a Housing and Health Care Revenue Refunding Note, Presbyterian Homes and Services, Lake Minnetonka Campus Project presbyterian homes.pdf NEW BUSINESS Dakota Retail, 7910 Dakota Avenue and the Adjacent Parcel to the West, Applicant: Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group/Owner: Center Companies, LLC Request for Preliminary Plat Review to Combine Two Parcels into One Lot of Approximately Two Acres Zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH); and Site Plan Review with Variances for an 8,000 Sq. Ft. Retail Building. dakota retail.pdf Resolution of Support for Contamination Cleanup Grant Application sinclair cleanup grant.pdf Extension of Purchase Agreement with Center Companies sinclair purchase agreement.pdf Arbor Cove, 3121 Westwood Drive, Applicant: Dogwood Road, LLC/Owner: Westwood Church: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment of 3.26 Acres from Public/Semi -Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 Acres from Office Institutional District (OI) to Single Family Residential (RSF); and Preliminary Plat Review of 54.67 Acres into 5 Lots. arbor cove.pdf COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET correspondence packet.pdf ADJOURNMENT GUIDE FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations . 1.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3.Limit your comments to 5 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the council. 4.During Visitor Presentations, the council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion, or request. 5.Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the public are welcome. A.5:30 P.M.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:B.7:00 P.M.C.D.1.a.Documents:b.Documents:2.Documents:a.b.E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.Documents:5.Documents:6.Documents:7.Documents:F.1.G.1.Documents:2.Documents:H.1. Documents: 2. Documents: I. 1. a. Documents: b. Documents: c. Documents: 2. Documents: J. K. L. Documents: M. AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOMSouthWest Transit Updates, Len Simichsw transit.pdf6:00 pm - Joint Meeting with the Park & Recreation Commissionprc joint meeting.pdfReview Solicitor's Ordinance and Licensessolicitor ord.pdfREGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSCALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSArbor Day in Chanhassen, May 3:Invitation to Arbor Day Celebrationinvite to arbor day.pdfPresentation of Arbor Day Poster Contest Winnersarbor day poster contest.pdfPresentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Commissioners:certificates of appreciation.pdfSteve Withrow, Planning CommissionRyan Lynch, Park & Recreation Commission Youth RepresentativeCONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City Council action is based on staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report.Approval of City Council Minutes dated April 14, 201404-14 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 04 -14 -14 -cc.pdfReceive Planning Commission Minutes dated April 15, 201404-15 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 04 -15 -14 -pc.pdfWell #15: Approve Consultant Contract with BARR Engineering.well 15 award consultant contract.pdfApprove Mileage Designation to the Municipal State Aid System, PW004.msa mileage designation.pdfTH 101 Minnesota River Crossing Project: Concurrence of Bids.mn river crossing project bids.pdfApprove Temporary On -Sale Liquor License Request, St. Hubert Catholic Community, May 27st hubert liquor.pdfApprove Resolution Proclaiming May 3 as Arbor Day in Chanhassenarbor day proclamation.pdfVISITOR PRESENTATIONSSee guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda.Tanner Burns, Power Hill Park Eagle Scout Project (verbal)LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATELt. Jeff Enevold, Carver County Sheriff's Officesheriffs report.pdfAssistant Chief Cori Wallis, Chanhassen Fire Departmentfire report.pdfPUBLIC HEARINGS2014 Street Reconstruction Project: Assessment Hearing.2014 street reconstruction project.pdfProposal for the Issuance of a Housing and Health Care Revenue Refunding Note, Presbyterian Homes and Services, Lake Minnetonka Campus Projectpresbyterian homes.pdfNEW BUSINESSDakota Retail, 7910 Dakota Avenue and the Adjacent Parcel to the West, Applicant: Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group/Owner: Center Companies, LLCRequest for Preliminary Plat Review to Combine Two Parcels into One Lot of Approximately Two Acres Zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH); and Site Plan Review with Variances for an 8,000 Sq. Ft. Retail Building.dakota retail.pdfResolution of Support for Contamination Cleanup Grant Applicationsinclair cleanup grant.pdfExtension of Purchase Agreement with Center Companiessinclair purchase agreement.pdfArbor Cove, 3121 Westwood Drive, Applicant: Dogwood Road, LLC/Owner: Westwood Church: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment of 3.26 Acres from Public/Semi -Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 Acres from Office Institutional District (OI) to Single Family Residential (RSF); and Preliminary Plat Review of 54.67 Acres into 5 Lots.arbor cove.pdfCOUNCIL PRESENTATIONSADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONSCORRESPONDENCE PACKETcorrespondence packet.pdfADJOURNMENTGUIDE FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONSWelcome to the Chanhassen City Council meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations . 1.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3.Limit your comments to 5 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the council. 4.During Visitor Presentations, the council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion, or request. 5.Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the public are welcome. A.5:30 P.M.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:B.7:00 P.M.C.D.1.a.Documents:b.Documents:2.Documents:a.b.E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.Documents:5.Documents:6.Documents:7.Documents:F.1.G.1.Documents:2.Documents:H.1.Documents:2.Documents:I.1.a.Documents:b.Documents:c.Documents:2.Documents:J.K.L.Documents:M. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. 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, Jerry Ruegemer, and Krista Spreiter PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEMBERS: Cole Kelly, Steve Scharfenberg, and Rick Echternacht PUBLIC PRESENT: Patrick Johnson 26350 Alexander Lane, Shorewood Todd Neils 990 Saddlebrook Curve Richard Crawford Chanhassen Villager DISCUSS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PICNIC SHELTER INITATIVE. Laurie Hokkanen introduced the item. Todd Hoffman reviewed the Park and Rec comprehensive plan which discusses the installation of 14 covered picnic shelters in neighborhood parks. He reviewed the existing shelter inventory and the schedule for proposed new shelters to be built through 2018. Mayor Furlong asked about the use of the current structure at Roundhouse Park. Councilman Laufenburger asked which parks cannot accommodate shelters, clarification on the usage for these shelters and suggested installing bulletin boards at all these shelters would be a good Eagle Scout project. Mayor Furlong asked about the size and usage for the Bandimere Park shelter. Todd Hoffman reviewed current capital improvement program funding. Council members asked for clarification of how the construction and bidding process will proceed. ATHLETIC FIELDS NEEDS ANALYSIS. Todd Hoffman reviewed current usage of lighted ball fields in regards to capacity. He reviewed the current inventory of lighted fields, fields scheduled for future lighting and recommendation for a phasing plan with a schedule of 2016 through 2022 and associated estimated costs. The park dedication fund does have an allocation of $175,000 for 2014 CIP dollars with the Chanhassen Athletic Association pledging additional dollars. Councilwoman Ernst asked about current requests not being fulfilled. Councilman Laufenburger asked if surrounding communities are not fulfilling capacity as well. Councilwoman Ernst asked about charging businesses to use fields. Todd Hoffman reviewed graphs showing adult softball, youth soccer, youth lacrosse and youth baseball/softball use trends and the schedules for usage. He reviewed the cost benefit analysis for lighting fields versus building new fields. Councilwoman Ernst asked for clarification of what the cost benefit is and clarification on the recommendation to light 4 fields at Bandimere Park prior to Lake Susan Park. Todd Hoffman continued with review of Chanhassen’s numbers versus national averages before reviewing staff’s conclusion that building more fields is not recommended. Installing lights to increase game time with a cost of $73.50 per game is recommended. Councilwoman Ernst asked staff for further clarification on lighting 4 fields at Bandimere Park prior to City Council Work Session – April 14, 2014 2 Lake Susan Park. Councilman Laufenburger asked what additional needs to be done at Lake Susan Park besides lighting fields. Mayor Furlong discussed that he does not necessarily agree with building beyond demand at Bandimere Park, adding 340 game capacity when demand is half of that, and suggested modifying the phasing plan. Councilman Laufenburger asked about extra usage on fields creating damage and asked for an estimated cost to build a turf field and dome. Councilwoman Ernst asked about numbers for additional costs associated with lighting fields. UPDATE ON WATER WISE PROGRAM. Paul Oehme provided an update on the Water Wise program. Krista Spreiter provided background information on the work that’s been done since 2008 in education for residential usage, and irrigation meters associated with commercial and institutional users. In summary she explained that most high users are not taking advantage of the program and suggested ways to expand the program through education and irrigation audits. Councilwoman Ernst asked about providing information to new residents or businesses. Paul Oehme discussed stormwater re-use strategies and projects. Krista Spreiter described the 101 River crossing stormwater re-use project as an example. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 7:00 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen Assistant City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES 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 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong read an invitation to the annual Easter Egg Candy Hunt being held on Saturday, April 19th 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 3.Resolution #2014-21: Approve Resolution Accepting Donations from Community Sponsor Program. 4.Resolution #2014-22: 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. 5.Resolution #2014-23: 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. 7.Resolution #2014-24: 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: None. City Council Summary – April 14, 2014 2 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). Kate Aanenson and Paul Oehme presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Council members and the City Engineer discussed the proposed T intersection at 62nd Street, Strawberry Lane and Strawberry Court and stop sign warrants. Councilman Laufenburger asked for clarification on the storm water drainage design. Kate Aanenson addressed each of the points brought up in the resident petition received the day of the meeting. Councilman Laufenburger asked for clarification on who governs how long the two accesses onto Highway 7 can stay, and plans for construction traffic. Councilwoman Ernst asked about drainage concerns and clarification of the T intersection. Councilman Laufenburger asked the applicant, Joe Jablonski with Lennar to address environmental clean up and if there were any wetlands on the site. Mayor Furlong invited Patrick Johnson, representing residents in the area to speak. He explained that most residents are pleased with the desire to invest in the community and support the idea of developing this parcel but they continue to have serious concerns that need to be addressed pertaining to the public hearing held during spring break, zoning, next generation housing, traffic study, road safety, public notification, and drainage. He finished by quoting from an article in the Star Tribune regarding a similar situation in Edina and Richfield. After clarifying with the City Attorney on the legalities of the request and comments from council members, the following motion was made. Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 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: 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. City Council Summary – April 14, 2014 3 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: 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. City Council Summary – April 14, 2014 4 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 revise the plans to incorporate a “T” intersection at 62nd 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. 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. City Council Summary – April 14, 2014 5 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: 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. City Council Summary – April 14, 2014 6 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. 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. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman Laufenburger commented on the District 112 Foundation banquet he attended on the Mayor’s behalf. Mayor Furlong commented on his presentation to the Buy Chanhassen group. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Laurie Hokkanen informed residents they could follow city items via the City’s Twitter account, thanked residents who gave blood last Wednesday, informed council members of a Buy Chanhassen luncheon on Tuesday where Joel Johnson will be speaking, invited council members to attend a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon breakfast event on Saturday May 10th for Chanhassen and Eden Prairie students entering the military after high school, and noted that registration is open for summer park and rec programs. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Councilman Laufenburger commented and thanked Kate Aanenson for the Planning Commission 2013 Year in Review and historical data. City Council Summary – April 14, 2014 7 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 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 to join us for our 31st 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 19th 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 Saturday, April 19th, 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 3.Resolution #2014-21: Approve Resolution Accepting Donations from Community Sponsor Program. 4.Resolution #2014-22: 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. 5.Resolution #2014-23: 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 2 7.Resolution #2014-24: 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 speaking as the representative for the residents of Shorewood Oaks, Strawberry Lane, 62nd 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). Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 3 Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on April 1st. 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 access then is via Church Road going up West 62nd 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 included 4 three-plex units and some twins. On September 25th 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, Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 4 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 Road, which is currently a 31 foot standard residential street which connects into 62nd 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 well. Like I had mentioned 62nd 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 tonight I think to make the connection to 62nd 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 5 Making the intersection, the T intersection and then also looking at the queuing or the back-up potential with the traffic that is on 62nd 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 Shorewood has indicated that they are looking at making upgrades to 62nd 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? Paul Oehme: I don’t think, well I could show you the plat but in terms of improvements to 62nd Street and the intersection, the intersection currently right now at 62nd 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 Shorewood is planning to make improvements to Strawberry Lane and 62nd Street. Obviously the City of Chanhassen would be involved with future improvements to 62nd Street since it’s our jurisdiction on the south side of the center line of 62nd Street but we feel that making improvements to 62nd 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. Mayor Furlong: Are there any current plans to improvement either 62nd 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. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Oehme, when you describe the T intersection at 62nd 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? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Yeah, so it would be a 180 degree line basically going into 62nd 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? Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 6 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. Councilman Laufenburger: How about a stop sign on the eastbound 62nd 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. Councilman Laufenburger: And the width of 62nd 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 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 7 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 8 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? Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 9 Paul Oehme: Sure. 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 10 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 11 Mayor Furlong: 17 of 25. 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 12 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 on Strawberry Lane? Or on 62nd. 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? Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 13 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 14 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. Kate Aanenson: Alright. We’re up to number 5. Access to 62nd 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 15 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. West 62nd 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? Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 16 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 their April 1st 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 17 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 18 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? Paul Oehme: So you know the access would be off of 62nd 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 19 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 Lane and 62nd 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 20 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 21 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 representing Lennar, 16305 36th 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 22 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 that public hearing. As you know April 1st 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 would have flown back specifically to be there for that April 1st 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. Audience: You should include West 62nd. Patrick Johnson: And West 62nd. 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 the traffic is going to be traveling along that route to Minnewashta and you have 62nd 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 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 23 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 24 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… Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 25 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 26 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 27 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 28 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 29 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 30 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? Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 31 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 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 32 signal, which will obviously be a safer way to come out onto Highway 7 from the north and to go east. I think this development from a safety standpoint, traffic safety at the intersection of Strawberry Lane, 62nd 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 approves the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots and 3 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: Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 33 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: Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 34 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 revise the plans to incorporate a “T” intersection at 62nd 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 35 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: Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 36 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 37 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 Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 38 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 10th. 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. Chanhassen City Council – April 14, 2014 39 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 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES APRIL 15, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, and Steve Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Dave Schulman 8011 Dakota Circle Ben Merriman Center Companies Lois Fiskness 8033 Cheyenne Avenue Lynne & Ron Pilgrim 8026 Dakota Avenue Kathy Dorfner 8026 Cheyenne Avenue Pat Jensen 8009 Dakota Circle Mike Quist 7331 Dogwood Kay Knight 8007 Dakota Circle Denise & Joe McAlpin 8001 Hidden Court Carol & Bud Walker 8018 Dakota Avenue Joyce White 8028 Dakota Avenue Mike Kovic 8024 Dakota Avenue Todd M. Simning 2145 Wynsong Lane Sharon McKinney 8046 Cheyenne Avenue Michelle Laurent 8115 Erie Circle Tania Teng Dakota ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to nominate Andrew Aller as Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Undestad moved, Weick seconded to nominate Kim Tennyson as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: DAKOTA RETAIL: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO COMBINE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE LOT AND ONE OUTLOT ON APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) LOCATED AT 7910 DAKOTA AVENUE AND THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE WEST; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING. APPLICANT: MOHAGEN HANSEN ARCHITECTURAL GROUP. OWNER: CENTER COMPANIES, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2014-11. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 2 Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Alyson Fauske presented the staff report on this item. Chair Aller asked when the traffic study will be completed. Commissioner Weick asked for clarification of the variance for the parking lot setback, the parking lot behind Outlot 1 and clean up of the gas station site. Ben Merriman with Center Companies discussed how the high power line easements dictated the layout of the site, clean up associated with the gas station, the holding pond which will handle storm water runoff, the tenant mix, trash enclosure location, traffic flow, and location of the building. Chair Aller opened the public hearing. Lynne Pilgrim, 8026 Dakota Avenue explained that she does not have a problem with the development but pleaded that something be done to improve the Dakota Avenue/Lake Drive East intersection for vehicle and pedestrian movements, and expressed concern with noise, lights, and hours of operation. Dave Schulman, 8011 Dakota Circle asked everyone in the audience who has safety concerns with this intersection to stand up. Chair Aller noted that approximately 25 people stood up. Sharon McKinney, 8046 Cheyenne Avenue explained that she was representing probably 20 to 25 households who have concerns with pedestrian safety at the intersection, especially for children walking and biking. Jay Poucher, 8039 Cheyenne stated he’s almost been hit 3 to 5 times in the year and a half he’s lived here and explained his safety concerns with this intersection, asked about location of the power pole that’s currently on the site, storm water drainage, suggested installing a roundabout at the intersection to solve the safety issues and asked that the traffic study be done over the weekend as well as mid-week. Chair Aller clarified that residents are upset with the present situation. Suzanne Shepherd, 8010 Dakota Avenue, having 4 kids ages 9 through 16 stated her biggest concern was pedestrian safety, asked that traffic from McDonalds and weekends be taken into account with the traffic study, and concern with trash from McDonalds and American Legion. Dave Schulman asked the commission to take into consideration that this intersection is the only way into Chan Estates. Lynne Pilgrim provided background information on the Chan Estates neighborhood. Ron Pilgrim, 8026 Dakota Avenue asked if there was adequate parking on the site and what happens if there’s overflow parking. Kay Knight, 8007 Dakota Circle expressed concern that there was no sidewalk to the corner of the development, and asked why this development could not be located on other undeveloped sites. Bob Seward, 8031 Cheyenne Avenue asked what about the type of restaurant going in this development which will dictate traffic numbers. Chair Aller closed the public hearing. After comments from commissioners, the following motion was made. Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat to replat 1.7 acres into one lot and one outlot, Planning Case 2014-11 as shown in plans dated received March 14, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Engineering Conditions 1.Before the final plat is recorded the Surface Water Management fees, Park Dedication fees, and GIS fees must be paid as well as any recording fees not collected with the final plat application. Park And Trail Conditions 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Dakota Retail. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based on the current proposed lot size of 1.51 acres and the city’s 2014 commercial/industrial park fee of $12,500 per unit, the total park fees for Dakota Retail would be $18,875. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 3 Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 8,000 square-foot multi-tenant building, Planning Case 2014-11 as shown in plans dated received March 14, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions 1.The applicant shall provide a total of 25 understory trees along the north property line. 2.All trees that fall within the utility easement along the north property line shall be ornamental trees. 3.The final landscape shall be submitted to the city and include a plant schedule with listed quantities. Building Official Conditions 1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system (MN Rule 1306). 2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report required. 3.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted. 4.Demolition permit required (contact MPCA regarding underground, fuel storage tanks removal requirements). 5.Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height require professional design, permits and approvals. 6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal Conditions 1.An additional fire hydrant will be required on the south side of the property.  This location  has been discussed with the Engineering Department. 2.“ No Parking Fire Lane” signs may be required.  The developer must contact the Fire  Marshal for exact locations. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 4 Engineering Conditions 1.The final plan must include proposed signage and/or pavement markings on the north side of the building that will alert drivers to and prohibit drivers from entering the one-way traffic associated with the drive-thru. 2.The parking stalls on the east side of the site, adjacent to the drive-thru must meet the city’s minimum stall width, or marked as compact parking if proposed as such. 3.The “bump out” on the west side of the site must be minimum 26 feet face-of-curb to face-of -curb. 4.Installation of the new water and sewer services must be coordinated with city staff, including advanced notification of the partial street closure, the timing of the work to minimize traffic disruption, and on-site inspection of the utility connection. 5.A cash escrow for the street restoration must be submitted prior to recording the final plat. The escrow can be released after a minimum of one freeze-thaw cycle and once staff inspects the street restoration and deems the work is satisfactory. 6.A private hydrant must be installed on the south side of the site at a location approved by the Fire Marshal. 7.Indicate if existing private lights along the perimeter of the site are to remain or be removed. 8.The developer must provide staff with the proposed haul route for removal of the excess material from the site before grading operations begin. The haul route is subject to staff review and approval. 9.All improvements in the Xcel easement, including but not limited to grading, site utility installation and landscaping must be approved by Xcel. 10.The final plans must include a note stating that the auxiliary utility pole south of the transmission tower on the north side of the site will be relocated, or else it must be incorporated into the plan. Any cost associated with relocating this pole shall be the developer’s responsibility. 11.The developer must coordinate the proposed grading in the northeast corner of the site with the affected small utilities, as the plans show altering the grade in the vicinity of two small utility pads. 12.The grading plan must be revised so that the proposed contours tie into the existing contours. 13.The storm pond must be lined to prevent potential in-situ soil contamination. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 5 14.The developer must submit calculations verifying that the proposed storm pond meets the city’s minimum requirements. 15.Drain tile must be installed on the south side of the site. Planning Conditions 1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 2.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. Wall signs shall be limited to the north, east and south elevations. Wall and monument signage shall comply with the sign ordinance. All signs require a sign permit. 3.The exterior material for the trash enclosure must be of the same exterior material as the building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 4.Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. All fixtures must be shielded. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ARBOR COVE: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT OF 3.26 ACRES FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONING OF 3.26 ACRES FROM OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (OI) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF); AND PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF 54.67 ACRES INTO 5 LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3121 WESTWOOD DRIVE. APPLICANT: DOGWOOD ROAD, LLC. OWNER: WESTWOOD CHURCH, PLANNING CASE 2014-06. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. The applicant, Todd Simning with Dogwood Development addressed the issue of the tree preservation boundaries. Chair Aller opened the public hearing. John Getsch, 7530 Dogwood Road stated he supports the development but has concerns with the width of Dogwood Road being narrow at that location, the steep driveways coming down to the road and suggested moving the houses further back on the lots. Todd Dillon, 7481 Dogwood Road asked for clarification on the location of the development in relation to his house. Chair Aller closed the public hearing. Hokkanen moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 3.26 acres from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 acres from Office Institutional District to Single Family Residential District; and Preliminary Plat review of 54.67 acres into 5 lots subject to the conditions and approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations: Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 6 Parks & Recreation 1.In lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, full park dedication fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. At today’s rate, these fees would total $23,200 (4 lots x $5,800 per lot). Building 1.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. 3.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. 4.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. Natural Resources 1.The applicant shall plant a total of 29 trees in the development. A revised landscape plan shall be required prior to final plat approval. 2.The applicant shall remove Amur maple from the plant list and replace it with an alternate ornamental tree. 3.Prior to any grading, the applicant shall install tree preservation fencing using metal stakes around tree #33 on Lot 4. The fencing shall be placed at the dripline or the furthest point possible from the trunk and no closer than 20 feet. Within the fencing, the applicant shall spread a 3 to 4-inch layer of woodchips to protect the root zone. These protections shall remain in effect until construction is completed. 4.A tree conservation easement shall be recorded east of the grading limits on Lot 1, over the rear 85 feet of Lots 2 through 3 4 and over the rear 75 feet of Lot 4. The applicant shall supply a legal description for the easement. 5.Easement signage shall be placed on the lot lines at the point of intersection with the easement on Lots 2 through 4. Signage shall be placed at points of directional change on Lot 1. Signs shall be approved by the city. Engineering 1.The grading plan shows steep slopes on Lots 2 and 4. Grading must be revised so that no slope is steeper than 3:1. 2.Grading plans must be revised to show existing and proposed elevations at each lot corner and the center of the proposed driveways at the curb line. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 7 3.The developer’s engineer must revise plans to include spot elevations and building corner elevations that direct water flow away from all structures. 4.Grading plan must show spot elevations to illustrate where water will flow at the back of Lot 3. 5.The EOF shall be noted with arrows showing the direction of the overflow. 6.Include a lot benching detail in the plans. 7.Draintile service must be provided for Lots 3 and 4, which have drainage flows from the back to the front of the lot. 8.Proposed stockpile areas must be indentified in the plans. 9.All existing easements shown in the plans must be properly referenced with the document number or plat they were dedicated under. 10.A conservation easement is proposed along the back of Lots 2, 3 and 4 as well as the east corner of Lot 1. 11.A new drainage and utility easement over the filtration basin and the channel on Lot 1 will provide the City access to these stormwater facilities. 12.The developer’s engineer must include the elevation of the top and bottom of the retaining walls. 13.The following retaining wall materials are prohibited: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber. 14.Grading must be revised to include a swale at the top of the retaining walls for drainage. 15.The topography shown must include elevation contours for Dogwood Road adjacent to the proposed lots. The centerline gradients must be labeled. The developer’s engineer must incorporate pressure-reducing valves and a surge protection system into the watermain plans. 16.At the time of final plat, the Dogwood Road improvements assessment must be paid or reassessed. 17.Partial water and sewer hookup fees must be paid at the time of final plat. Water Resources 1.A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including all required elements listed in the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program must be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval. 2.No native soils may be used in the filtration soil. Instead Mix B from the MN Stormwater Manual - 70% washed sand and 30% leaf-litter compost mixture shall be used. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 8 3.Pretreatment practices to be employed shall be shown on the plan view and in the detail sheet. This shall be shown at the curb cut. It is highly recommended that something similar to the Rain Guardian developed by Anoka Conservation District be used. The pretreatment device must be approved by the City. 4.It shall be called out on both grading plans that steps shall be taken to prevent compaction and siltation of the area resulting from construction activities on the site. 5.Remove the filter fabric from the detail and use a choker course of rock instead. 6.The underdrain shall be smooth walled and have a tracer wire. 7.A knife gate valve shall be included prior to the underdrain entering the proposed 27-inch manhole. This valve shall be reasonable easy to access. 8.Calculations shall be provided demonstrating that the feature will draw down within 48 hours. 9.Efforts shall be made to decrease the depth as close as possible to the 9.6 inches but no greater than the 14.4 inches recommended for MH HSG B soils. 10.Side slopes shall be no steeper than 5:1 and as close to 10:1 as possible except that the south boundary may be up to 3:1. 11.The feature shall be kept offline until the vegetation has been established. Plans and the SWPPP must include this information and describe the methodology to be used to achieve this. 12.A detailed planting plan and schedule must be developed and included in plan set for approval 13.The in-situ soils shall be ripped to a depth of 12 inches prior placing the amended filtration soils. 14.The developer shall be responsible for the construction of the biofiltration feature and shall make assurances that the plant materials, mulch and side slopes into biofiltration feature are maintained throughout the life of the feature. This is most typically accomplished though a Homeowners Association. The city will be responsible for maintenance of the underdrain, outlet pipe and inlet protection device at the curb. An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed describing how the feature will be maintained and by who will be responsible for the maintenance. 15.The applicant shall include tree 119 and 129 into the protection plan. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 9 16.The drainage and utility easement shall extend from top of bank to top of bank for the proposed channel. 17.The 988 and 986 contours shall be broadened to create a more laminar flow before discharging onto city right-of-way. 18.The plan shall maintain a separation of at least two (2) feet between peak flow elevation in the channel during the 100-year storm event and the top of bank for that portion behind the proposed structure on Lot 1. 19.The SWPPP as well as the erosion control plan must indicate how the conveyance from the wetland will be permanently stabilized. 20.A detail of the rock checks must be included. This shall be consistent with Technical Supplement 14C to Part 654 of the National Engineering Handbook. 21.An estimated surface water management connection fee of $14,066.50 will be due with the final plat. 22.The plans must meet all requirements set forth by other agencies with authority over the site. The applicant is responsible to procure all necessary approvals and permissions. This includes, among others, the MN Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Planning 1.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the land use map amendment from Public/Semi -Public to Residential Low Density. 2.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 3.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the rezoning from Office Institutional District to Single-Family Residential. 4.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENTS: CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS (SECTION 18-61) , AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING (ARTICLE VIII PUD DISTRICT AND ARTICLE XXIII GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL); AND CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Summary – April 15, 2014 10 Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapters 1, 18, and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 1, 2014 as presented and the amended Work Session Summary Minutes dated April 1, 2014 showing Commissioner Steve Weick as present. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson reviewed new business sign permits and future Planning Commission agenda items and meeting dates. Chair Aller informed commissioners of a workshop linking land use to clean water being held on May 8th with Barr Engineering in Edina and May 14th at the Bayview Event Center in Excelsior. Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 15, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, and Steve Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Dave Schulman 8011 Dakota Circle Ben Merriman Center Companies Lois Fiskness 8033 Cheyenne Avenue Lynne & Ron Pilgrim 8026 Dakota Avenue Kathy Dorfner 8026 Cheyenne Avenue Pat Jensen 8009 Dakota Circle Mike Quist 7331 Dogwood Kay Knight 8007 Dakota Circle Denise & Joe McAlpin 8001 Hidden Court Carol & Bud Walker 8018 Dakota Avenue Joyce White 8028 Dakota Avenue Mike Kovic 8024 Dakota Avenue Todd M. Simning 2145 Wynsong Lane Sharon McKinney 8046 Cheyenne Avenue Michelle Laurent 8115 Erie Circle Tania Teng Dakota ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if we could do the new business first. We left this off in your absence at the last meeting. The election of Chair. This is part of our annual meeting. We usually do this at our first one in April but in your absence so if someone wanted to make a recommendation and a motion for Chair and Vice Chair, that would be great. Undestad: I’ll make a recommendation and a motion that Andrew for Chair. Tennyson: I’ll second it. Aller: Any other nominations or motions? Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to nominate Andrew Aller as Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: And then we’ll ask for a motion for Vice Chair. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 2 Undestad: I’ll make a motion for the Vice Chair too. Kim. Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, do we have any other nominations? Undestad moved, Weick seconded to nominate Kim Tennyson as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: DAKOTA RETAIL: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO COMBINE TWO PARCELS INTO ONE LOT AND ONE OUTLOT ON APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT (BH) LOCATED AT 7910 DAKOTA AVENUE AND THE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE WEST; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING. APPLICANT: MOHAGEN HANSEN ARCHITECTURAL GROUP. OWNER: CENTER COMPANIES, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2014-11. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The site is located at 7910 Dakota Avenue, as well as the adjacent parcel to the west and southwest. It is located south of Highway 5, west of Dakota Avenue and north and south of Lake Drive East. The site contains a 1,460 square foot retail store with 8 gas pumps. There is no existing access onto Highway 5. There are two access points off of Dakota Avenue and one off of Lake Drive East. The land use for the site is designated as commercial and the zoning of the site is Highway Business District. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing structures and replace them with a retail office building which is a permitted use in this district. The site plan request is for the construction of an 8,000 square foot multi-tenant single level building. There is, this is a permitted use as mentioned earlier in the Highway Business District. The maximum permitted coverage in this district is 65 percent. The proposed development has a total hard coverage of 63.92. There are sidewalks that are being extended along the southerly portion of the site, as well as the area surrounding the building. This will separate pedestrian movement from vehicular movement. The building is proposed to be constructed of high quality materials which include stone, stucco and metal panels. These are samples of the materials that are being proposed to be used on the building. All elevations viewed by the public have received equal attention. The building has pronounced entrances. Utilizes durable exterior materials and exhibits articulation. The trash enclosure is proposed to be located west of the building. In the parking lot and is proposed to be constructed of materials similar to those used on the building. Although it is screened it will be the first thing that will be seen as you enter the site. The applicant was also proposing to add a patio immediately to the north of the trash enclosure. We are working with the applicant right now and they do intend to move the trash enclosure further into the site and away from the building. Parking is proposed throughout the site. One of the issues that staff discussed with the applicant at length was the location of the proposed building and the drive thru. The drive thru is located along the east portion of the building and we were trying to encourage the applicant to move the building closer to Highway 5. It is our opinion that the building should be closer because it will allow the proposed building to be aligned with other buildings along Highway 5 such as McDonald’s immediately to the east, and basically a number of other buildings. It will better screen the parking lot but we also need to point out that as proposed this layout meets ordinance requirements. It’s just that we do believe that there is a better layout for this. One of the other things that we need to point out regarding the parking. Under City Code and in this district you need to maintain a 25 foot setback for the parking. This layout provides anywhere between 15 and 19 1/2 feet of setbacks. The City Code also allows a reduction in that setback if you can provide adequate screening and we believe that the proposed screening combination of berms and landscaping will meet the intent of the ordinance. At this point I will turn it over to Alyson to address a few engineering issues. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 3 Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. This slide shows the proposed access for the redevelopment of this site. If you recall on the earlier slide there are two existing access points on Dakota Avenue and one existing access on Lake Drive East which is a little bit further east of the proposed access that they’re showing. When the applicant came forward to staff during early discussions on the redevelopment of this site, the access points on Dakota Avenue, staff indicated that those do not meet our access spacing guidelines due to their proximity to Highway 5 and Lake Drive East. As such, what you see before you is the proposed one access point onto Lake Drive East which is about 220 feet to the west of Dakota Avenue which is in compliance with the access spacing guidelines that the City has set out. The reason we have the spacing guidelines is to allow, is when you consider the estimated volumes of traffic on this type of road. To allow drivers enough decision time to make the decision to make a turn after going through an intersection so that’s how those guidelines are set up. The proposal that’s here tonight does meet that spacing guideline and as I mentioned Dakota Avenue access is not included in this plan. Nor is access to Highway 5. Being a state highway and having access from another local street, MnDOT would not support an access to Highway 5. One of the other items that staff wanted to take a look at is based on the existing use of the site. The 8 fueling stations with a convenience store as well as the proposed use of the site. We wanted to take a look at what the trip generation, the estimates are for the existing and the proposed use. We looked at the total weekday trips as well as the morning and evening peak, just to provide a comparison of what exists today and what is proposed. The existing condition again is an estimate. It’s not an actual count that was taken on the site so there may be some variation in those numbers but the proposed total is within a range that we would expect to see in this sort of district with these roads and one of the things that we wanted to take a look at with this, with this redevelopment of this site aside is to take a look at the intersection of Dakota and Lake Drive East just within the system of the city of Chanhassen. The reason being the current condition is a stop condition for eastbound and westbound traffic on Lake Drive East and we wanted to take a look and see if the traffic counts in that area would warrant a different condition so today the traffic count equipment should have been in place to get that information and then we will have a traffic engineer provide us with a recommendation on that intersection. Again that’s something that the City has generated. This is, this isn’t something that’s due directly to the development. It’s just now is the time to take a look at it so we are getting an evaluation done on that intersection to see what the best traffic, if the stop conditions as they are set right now are warranted and if there’s any changes that the traffic engineer would recommend at that intersection. We currently do not have any trip generation, the estimated daily trips on Dakota Avenue because it currently is not officially on our state aid system route. As we discussed at our previous Planning Commission meeting only state aid routes have traffic counts done on them so we will be starting to get that information available and certainly we’ll have some information available from this traffic analysis that’s being done at this time. Al-Jaff: The site consists of 3 parcels. The parcel that is currently occupied by the Sinclair gas station and then there is a vacant parcel along the westerly portion of it. The proposal calls for combining the portions along the north side of Lake Drive East into one parcel. That will be Lot 1, Block 1 and then the portion that lies south of Lake Drive and adjacent to the residential area will be replatted into an outlot and there is no development proposed on the outlot. Minimum lot area in the Highway Business District is 20,000 square feet. This parcel has an area that exceeds 65,000 square feet. It has frontage. Meets all ordinance requirements. It’s a straight forward action and staff is recommending approval of the subdivision as well as the site plan. Would be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I guess I have a quick question for Alyson. When is the study anticipated to be completed? Will it be done before this goes to council? Fauske: The data collection will be done this week and we would expect a report back within a week and a half or so and I believe the, with this being an April 28th we might not have it for the City Council. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 4 Aller: And without tying people to recommendations it seems like if it comes out like the study shows that there would be adverse traffic consequences, the recommendation then would be stop signs as far as controlling the intersections? Fauske: The analysis of the intersection is independent of this proposal here this evening. It’s, the intent is to take a look at what the traffic volumes are currently on the road. I did provide the estimated trip generation to the traffic engineer to use in his analysis but he’s currently analyzing the intersection as it exists today. Aller: And the trip generation that we’ve got in our report that’s based on a restaurant, dental office and coffee shop. Do we know whether or not, are those leases in stone yet or do we know who the tenants will be? Major tenants. Ground tenants. Al-Jaff: I recommend you ask the developer please. Aanenson: I would just add one comment on that. Based on the parking, that’s kind of the mix that can go in there. You couldn’t have all restaurants because there’s not enough parking so that’s going to determine some of it. Could there be a change in some of those? Yes but there’s a cap. Aller: So it’d be unlikely that we’d have a greater trip generation based on what could go in there? Audience: Can you speak up? We can barely hear you. It sounds like you’re mumbling out here. Aller: Sure. I’m sorry. Audience: So did that one lady that was…I’m just saying please. Aller: No, and thank you. Is that better? Audience: Much better. Audience: Thank you. Aller: And thank you for coming and participating so I do want to make sure that everyone hears. Audience: Thank you for speaking up. Aller: So my question is, with what can be put in there we would not expect the trip generation to be much higher than what is in the report? Aanenson: Well yeah. I mean the parking is 1 per 200 for a restaurant but I mean again you have to look at that mix and how that would all work. How it would function. What would the other tenants expect for that… Audience: I have a question. Aller: Ma’am, we’re going to have a public hearing portion and then we’ll have everybody have an opportunity to ask questions at that time. Thank you. Any other questions from the commissioners to staff? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 5 Weick: I do. Yes I have a couple questions and I think they’re appropriate for staff but if not let me know and I’ll ask the applicant. One is, I’m looking for a little clarification on the parking spacing. It sort of went by a little bit fast for me but there’s a 25 foot setback and are we saying that there’s a, we’re going to vary that to allow for 19 to 21 feet or something like that? Al-Jaff: The City Code allows that variation. Weick: It does? Al-Jaff: If you can screen the parking. Weick: Okay. Al-Jaff: And when we looked at what the applicant is proposing we believe that they do meet the intent of the ordinance. Weick: Okay. That’s my first question. Aller: So this is the screening. Weick: Right. Last, could you go to the slide that said existing condition? It’s towards the end. This one’s good too. Yeah. There’s a parking behind Outlot 1 and what, I’m just not familiar with the area. What is that? Aanenson: It’s a church. Al-Jaff: Church. Weick: Okay. Okay. And then the existing structure that’s there is a fuel station. There’s no issues that the City sees in clean up or cleanliness of that to put in a retail? Aanenson: Yes, there may be but that would be something they’d have to do with their soil investigation and in order to get a building permit they’ll have to make sure that it’s acceptable if there’s any clean up that has to be done. Weick: Perfect. I just wanted clarification on those. Thank you. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Okay, if the applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation, this is an opportunity to do so at this time. If you could please state your name for the record that’d be great. Ben Merriman: Good evening. My name is Ben Merriman. I’m the owner of Center Companies. The applicant of the project. Aller: Welcome. Ben Merriman: I guess I’ll take you through a couple things in the project. This is an extremely challenging site. The layout is somewhat dictated because there are high power lines that are paralleling Highway 5 and there’s an easement for those power lines and that easement dictates that you are not allowed to put any type of a structure underneath them. You are allowed to change the topography to some degree. You’re allowed to plant shrubs. You can put parking. You can put curb but you cannot put Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 6 a structure so if you draw a line of where that easement starts it’s about on the edge or slightly south of the parking stalls that are along Highway 5 so that was our first challenge was trying to dictate how we can lay out the property and still make things flow with these power lines. There is clean up on the site. There is pollution. We have Braun Intertec, which is a company here that’s well noted and they’re going to perform, they have performed all the analysis and they will be on site and working with all the clean up so we’ll clean up all the petrol on there. There’s a holding pond in the southeast corner and that holds the entire rain water that comes off of the building and the parking lot. Currently there isn’t any so it just washes out. That will be a lined pond. The tenants that are in the property right now, we are finalizing the leases with them. It is a coffee shop. It is a dental and then the third is either a restaurant or a combination of restaurant yogurts, those type of things. Sandwich shop, that type of thing and so we’re finalizing that but the dental office works extremely well in this project simply because it’s a low employee and visitor count as compared to a coffee shop or a restaurant and so when staff alluded to we’re trying to balance the site for the parking, that’s what we’ve done. I’d be happy to answer any other questions. Aller: On the trash receptacle with the conversation, is there an idea where you might move that to or place it? Ben Merriman: Yes. What we’re contemplating is to move it directly west into the parking stalls. A little bit to the right. To the right. Oh you got it. Right there. We’re going to exchange some parking stalls so there’s 3 stalls that will be taken out right there and replaced where the trash enclosure is currently and we can, the topography of that whole area goes up so we can create berms around the trash enclosure and plant trees so I think we can screen it better in that location as opposed to against the building. As staff pointed out, it is kind of the first thing you see as you drive in so we think moving it made sense. Aller: Sounds like it will look a little bit more inviting and probably make the patio a little more enjoyable. Ben Merriman: That would be the other thing, yes. In the summertime that might not go over real well so we made that adjustment. The traffic flow in the property works pretty well. I think it keeps the lights, the headlights if they were in the morning and late evenings in the winter, away from the residential and into highways and roads. Aller: Questions? Questions of the applicant? Okay, we have no further questions. Weick: I do. I do. I’m sorry, I do have one. Aller: Mr. Weick. Weick: The staff mentioned a desire to move the building closer to Highway 5. Is the power line easement with the stalls what keeps you from moving that building or? Can you just elaborate on that a little bit? Ben Merriman: Well we tried. I don’t even know how many configurations of trying to get this thing to work. Smaller buildings. Skinnier buildings. Push it all to one side and we’ve tried so many different variance and one of the ones was if you pushed the building all the way to Highway 5 and then put the drive thru kind of on the Highway 5 side. Well that made some sense but then the parking all goes on the south side and whether that makes sense or not I guess is varying opinions but if we do that now we’re, we can’t get the building too close because with that power line easement so we struggled with that and kind of lost some area. Some ground by doing that. There wasn’t, we didn’t feel that there was quite Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 7 enough to make it work and we felt that this gives the exposure for the tenants that they really want to Highway 5 and to the traffic. Weick: Thank you. Ben Merriman: So this is what we ended up with. Aller: Anything else at this point? Okay, thank you sir. I’m going to open the public hearing and now’s the time for anyone that wishes to to come forward. State your name and address for the record and you can speak either for or against an item. Lynne Pilgrim: Hi, I’m Lynne Pilgrim. 8026 Dakota Avenue. Aller: Welcome. Lynne Pilgrim: I have lived in Chanhassen since 1977 and I’ve watched this intersection go from a very peaceful little intersection to one that is suicide junction. I’ve had an accident there. Many of my neighbors have had accidents there and they haven’t been our fault. I truthfully believe that the big problem is not the development. I don’t have a problem with the development. I have a problem with the intersection and I think this is a right time for us to look at the intersection of Dakota and Lake Drive. We’re going to have more people turning and going on Lake Drive. They’re going to be coming down a curve and getting into that entrance into this development. They’re not going to slow down. They don’t slow down now. They’re going to get their morning coffee and they’re going to zip through. We’re watching them do it out of McDonald’s. One hand has the cup of coffee. The other hand’s got the cell phone and we’re steering the car with our elbows. The child’s in the back seat yelling so we leave Chan Estates with one foot on the brake and one hand on the horn because our lives are in danger. When we have visitors that come, my husband pointed this out, we’re used to it so we kind of know what to do but when we have visitors come they don’t know and they say things to us like, do you know I almost got hit and we’ll go yeah. That happens so I’m very, very worried about that. I walk to town a lot and if we call, those of us who are on the south side of the highway grew up thinking we were the first development on the south side so that was out of town and this was town so we walked across the highway and we walked to town. I walk to town. It’s not a pleasant walk down there. We don’t have crosswalks. People don’t look at the stop signs so it’s dangerous and I don’t know what more we can say but as the developer looks at this situation I wish that he’d also think about a blinking octagon stop sign. Maybe a 3 way stop. Maybe something that would be more arresting to people that their eyes would say oh. Right now we get a little sign that says, you know that it’s only a two way stop and that’s it. Yeah, traffic does not stop. Thank you. But nobody pays attention to it so I don’t know what else we can do. My other concern is currently McDonalds has a drive thru and their lights come straight into one of our neighbor’s bedroom windows. Okay? That was addressed by putting, the neighbor himself put in very high trees to block it so it doesn’t come in his bedroom windows anymore. However they also reduced the time that that establishment was open. We don’t have a patio on McDonalds. We don’t have outside seating. We don’t have people that are making noises. My concern then becomes for Brookhill, what happens to them? If you’ve got a patio over there is, when, what are the hours going to be? What kind of lighting are you going to have on these buildings? We can currently see the American Inn sign that’s bright red up there at night but we don’t need much more. Can we have some sort of timeframe that hours that this would be open? Time, what kind of hours are you talking about? Are we going to have the patio open at 6:00 in the morning until midnight or is this patio you’re talking about going to be open from you know 10:00 in the morning til 4:00? Things like that so if you could think about that a little bit we’d appreciate it. I don’t know, somebody else may have some other input. Aller: Thank you Ms. Pilgrim. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 8 Lynne Pilgrim: Mr. Schulman: Dave Schulman: I’m Dave Schulman, 8011 Dakota Circle. Can everybody here that’s from Chan Estates that’s concerned about safety stand up? Lynne Pilgrim: And I think you’ve got some Brookhill people here too. Dave Schulman: Yep, okay. So that’s some votes. Thank you. Aller: Is it fair to say approximately 25 people? Dave Schulman: Yeah. And if you would come to the National Night Out you’d probably have 90 people doing the same thing. Sharon McKinney: And I don’t think you know we’re represented… Aller: Ma’am, if you’re going to speak for the clarity of the record, come up and state your name. Dave Schulman: She’s the co-chair of the National Night Out. Sharon McKinney: There may only be 25 of us here but we’re probably each representing. Aller: Ma’am, just for the record could you state your name? Sharon McKinney: Sharon McKinney, 8046 Cheyenne Avenue. Aller: Welcome, go ahead. Sharon McKinney: Thank you. I think even if you’re saying you know 25 people, we are representing probably 20 to 25 households here tonight so, and a lot of us have children in the neighborhood that bike. You know one of the reasons we live in Chanhassen is because it’s a, it’s a pedestrian/bike friendly community and so we do really have some concerns with our particular intersection. Even you know we’re not on the highway yet so we’re just trying to insure that some of the safety is acknowledged in our community because a lot of, we like to bike. We like to come downtown on the walking bridge and so we have to bypass this intersection every time we try to do that. Aller: Great. Sharon McKinney: Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Jay Poucher: Hello, my name is Jay Poucher, 8039 Cheyenne. I’m the exact opposite of Ms. Pilgrim. I’ve only been in this house for about a year and a half but I’ve almost gotten smashed about 3 or 4 or 5 good times in this same intersection and I worry about that and I think that’s probably one of the biggest concerns here and I’m new. I mean people just pop out right in front of you and you’re like, the problem for me is access out of McDonalds, it’s going to now double because we’re going to access out of this other side too and there’s just, it’s like no man’s land right there. And then we’re so close to Highway 5 traffic light that there either may be some sort of time sequence light that we could install in this corner or, think about the configuration of this intersection in some other form. I have two questions that you might Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 9 be able to answer. First, is this drawing represent where this power pole is? There’s a giant power pole on the lot. But does that translate onto this other diagram? Is that the parking spot that’s not, that’s X’d out? Ben Merriman: Yes. Go to the site plan. Jay Poucher: Yeah, could we go to the site plan? Right there. Ben Merriman: See where the two large trees are that are out in the parking lot? Jay Poucher: Yes sir. Ben Merriman: Directly up from the dumpster? Jay Poucher: Okay, good. Ben Merriman: There you go. Jay Poucher: Now second question, is the drainage of this holding pond, where’s that going? Do we know? Aller: Ms. Fauske if you could. Fauske: I believe that drains, that connects to the storm sewer in Dakota and goes to the existing system. Jay Poucher: That ties it back out to the? Fauske: Correct. And through their development proposal they are required to rate reductions. Jay Poucher: Okay. And does it, their proposal is there something that says we have enough existing pipe to move water through? Fauske: Yes. Jay Poucher: To Hennepin County side. Fauske: Yes. Jay Poucher: Okay. That intersection is interesting. That little holding pond is interesting for me because that might be a solution as a roundabout right there and I don’t know if we’ve thought about that or not but a roundabout might be able to solve some of our problems here in that we are now routing people from one place to the other but we’re not allowing them to just drive into an intersection. And I would like to at least, the last point I’d like to make, there was only about a week of time in which we’re studying traffic? Fauske: The analysis is for a 72 hour count during the middle of the week to eliminate any anomalies, if I may address that. Aller: Sure. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 10 Fauske: To eliminate any anomalies associated with weekend traffic that would carry over to a Monday or Friday. Jay Poucher: So it’s through a weekend like from a Thursday to a Monday? Fauske: No, it’s Tuesday through Thursday. For traffic analysis that’s the standard practice. That’s the time to take a look at peak. Jay Poucher: For me that’s another place I have issues. I don’t think we really see the residential traffic that’s in and out of Dakota during the week like we would during the weekend because I’m in and out of that place on the weekend. I would like to see a 10 day window in which we look at traffic flow down Dakota in particular because I think that traffic flow in Dakota is the key to our safety and our property values in that area. Aller: And just to be clear so that I understand, it sounds like the residents are upset with the present situation. Jay Poucher: Yes. Aller: So on a weekend now based on the church overflow and the traffic flow and the trip generation from just the residents that it’s a fairly hazardous situation. Jay Poucher: I think the traffic numbers look a little off to me but we would like to see that on a longer window so I could feel a little more confident about what is there now and what is there now, and I’ve only been there 18 months-24 months. That’s a scary little intersection and that’s why I think we’re all addressing it this moment. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Alyson, who has control of that? For purposes intersection, would that be State coming in to do a? Fauske: As far as doing the analysis at Lake Drive and Dakota, that would be the City. So that’s, we’re taking the steps with the traffic engineer to get him to take an analysis of the intersection and provide us with some guidance on what would be the best options to explore. Aller: Thank you. Suzanne Shepherd: I’m Suzanne Shepherd and 8010 Dakota Avenue. I have 4 kids that are ages 9 through 16 and I’ve been living in, on Dakota Avenue about 5 or 6 houses up from where Ivan’s is right now. I’ve been living there since 1999. What has been said about the traffic issue is a real concern. My biggest concern is obviously I’m the mom taxi and there’s a lot of kids in the neighborhoods. Since I moved in there in 1999 there’s a lot more. I was trying to count just on my block up to where it intersects with Cheyenne and on my side of the street there might be 15 or 20. My kids go to McDonalds too. We use the Redbox all the time so we’ve got the walking issue. There’s no safe place to walk. Also there are trees that are on the residential side where there’s rental properties, which I think would be on the south side of Lake Drive. There’s trees in that ghost empty building that has been sitting there forever. I am concerned with the new development. We’re talking about trees and berms and hiding things and if the traffic that’s coming in and out cannot see the bikes and the children and the strollers, that’s a huge problem so I’m talking about walking traffic. Biking traffic and then also as a driver coming through that intersection, like Lynne was saying, the amount of people that are coming through. They want their coffee. They want their this. They want their that. When we’re looking at the trip, I was not familiar with that as a measurement of traffic but when we’re looking at the trip issues, counts we, I believe we Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 11 also need to look at what is coming from the McDonalds side. You guys had mentioned that you don’t count what comes from our neighborhood, from Dakota out. You don’t count that but what comes from the McDonalds side is just as important as what is coming from the other side and I agree also with Jay about you’ve got to look at what’s going on on the weekends. With American Legion. With the Methodist Church there. And my final issue is trash. That between the McDonalds trash, the American Legion trash, the glass bottles. I’ve called the City about this before. That we don’t have a safe, we don’t have a safe area on the north side of Lake Drive for our kids to get up to the bridge to cross over so I, you know all power to the new coffee place because I hate McDonalds coffee but let’s make sure Mr. Developer Dude, I guess he’s not here anywhere. Audience: He’s here. Suzanne Shepherd: Where’d you go? Oh there you are. Don’t build tall trees that are going to block this, our ability to see. Don’t build tall trees. Don’t build anything that’s going to block our cars. I drive a minivan. I can see better but if you drive a car that’s lower than that then you’re screwed. You’re screwed anyways no matter when you go through the intersection. My kids are learning new words every time I’m honking my horn and saying, so that’s all I got. Thank you. Dave Schulman: Dave Schulman again. If you look at a map of Chan Estates this is virtually the only way to get in there. And if you look at the map over there, the only other way is to go up by the Total Mart, whatever it is and then down way back about 2 miles out of our way so please consider that also because if there’s an incident at that intersection, we can’t get home. Audience: Fire engines can’t get in. Dave Schulman: Fire engine can’t get through. A lot of us were there when McDonalds went in 34 years ago and we fought that and the big objection then was the access through that intersection if there was an accident and that was pretty much ignored 34 years ago too so. Aller: Thank you sir. Dave Schulman: So that’s it for me. Lynne Pilgrim: I’ll just give you just one last little bit of comment about it. Chan Estates is, as I said is a very unique neighborhood. We’re one of the more moderately priced neighborhoods so we’re trying to keep it a safe neighborhood for families. Young families that want to move in and take over the homes that some of us are outgrowing as we get older but way back when I moved in in ’77, Highway 5 was 2 lanes. We did not have a semaphore there and the City put that in and it was somewhere around 1980-82 it was put in by the State and Chan Estates was assessed, every house to pay for that light for the City’s portion. So all of us feel that we have a very, very vested interest in what’s going on there. We feel like we bought that light and look what’s happened. We kind of because we paid for the light, everything else came and we bought the light so we could get out because up to that point the only way to cross Highway 5 at 3:00 on was to go east up to the nearest farm, turn around and come back and then you could go pick up your kids at school because we couldn’t get across the highway. So just a little background that I thought some of you who aren’t aware what the neighborhood’s like and that you should have. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional last comments? Yes sir. No. No pushing and shoving. Ron Pilgrim: Ron Pilgrim, 8026 Dakota Avenue. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 12 Aller: Welcome. Ron Pilgrim: More of a question than a comment, and maybe it was stated. I may have missed it. I’m wondering how many parking spots? I was trying to count them. It’s a little hard but is there a requirement for a retail operation such as this? How many parking spots are required? And I suspect whoever is putting this retail in expects it to be very successful. What happens, especially if it becomes a restaurant and some restaurants some evenings get a lot of flow there. I see the ones up here in town, some nights it’s hard to find a spot. What happens if there’s overflow parking here? Or where is overflow parking here? Can’t park along Dakota or Lake Drive East. Where does it go? Aller: Sharmeen, would you like to. Ron Pilgrim: So number one, how many parking spots is there? Aller: Okay. Aanenson: Before we go to that. I’d just like to remind everybody that all of our staff reports are available on line and they’re very detailed. We just gave you a summary of that but all the lighting, the architecture is all broken down by detail so, yeah. Pardon me? Aller: The lighting is by code so everything that I’m seeing in the report is the lighting and the parking and the setback, other than the ability to reduce the setback to allow for parking is what they’re looking for a variance on so. Aanenson: I just want to make the point that the staff report is available online and this is a summary of the presentation so. Aller: And it is for anyone in the audience or at home, all the Minutes. All the. Aanenson: Any documentation related to this. Aller: Documents that we receive are online. Aanenson: Yes. I’ll let Sharmeen talk about the analysis of the parking. Ron Pilgrim: So as I understand there’s enough parking spots there. Aanenson: We’ll give you the details. Ron Pilgrim: By code. Aanenson: Yes. Ron Pilgrim: My question then is, if there isn’t enough. Sometimes code doesn’t always work out. So there’s 10 extra cars one evening down there, where do they park? Al-Jaff: The City Code requires 1 parking space for 200 square feet. That amounts to 40 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 53 parking spaces so that’s 13 spaces more than what is required by ordinance. Ron Pilgrim: But how do you determine that if you haven’t determined if there’s going to be a restaurant there and possibly a sit down type restaurant? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 13 Al-Jaff: When you have a building that has a mix such as what the applicant is proposing, it’s always 1 per 200 and the mix does work. Ron Pilgrim: Okay. One other, just one other comment. As I said you know, I would suspect that whoever is developing this expects a very successful operation and when I looked at the number of trips per week, it’s almost the same as going in and out of Ivan’s. Well now my math, if you look at buying a cup of coffee, and there will be competition for a cup of coffee. You can go across, just across the street there to McDonalds and get a dollar cup of coffee. I’m not sure what type of coffee shop this is going to be. Or you can go just up the street to Starbucks but if you look at selling cups of coffee at a buck and a half, two bucks apiece, or a latte for maybe three, three and a half versus selling a tank of gas at $3.50 a gallon, I don’t know. Maybe there’s a lot more margin in coffee than there is in gasoline but I guess I kind of question where these trips come in. 1,300 versus 1,200 or whatever the numbers were. I don’t exactly remember them but that’s somewhere they were in that 1,200-1,300 trips per week. Doesn’t seem like enough trips for this type of a retail outlet. I think you’re a little low. Aller: Okay, thank you. Ron Pilgrim: So that’s my comments. Only comments. Take it for what it’s worth. Aller: Ma’am. Kay Knight: Good evening. I’m Kay Knight from 8007 Dakota Circle and I have also been here for 30 some years and I have two things. I have a question and a comment. The question is I’m really concerned with the new development that there is no sidewalk on that corner. It starts at the exit and entrance of that driveway and right now we do have a sidewalk. I have walked it. Many of us in the neighborhood have walked it and even the kids have walked this sidewalk from the entrance to the corner there is sidewalk there and we have kids that go to the library. We are more in tune to our environment in using our bikes and so is the kids so I have a huge concern that there is no sidewalk so, and usually our neighborhood is going to be the one using that area. It’s our neighborhood that’s the closest there so that is a huge concern. No one did bring that up but there’s no sidewalk. And I know for a fact. Aanenson: Mr. Chair can we get clarification on where she’s speaking at. Kay Knight: I’ll show you. Aanenson: You can just tell me the street name would be fine. Kay Knight: No I will show you. Aller: Is it Dakota? Kay Knight: From here to here. Right now it’s. Aller: So it’s Lake Drive East. Kay Knight: Sidewalk all the way up. I don’t see a sidewalk. Do you see a sidewalk? Aanenson: There is a sidewalk there. That’s what the dark gray represents. Kay Knight: Well then what’s this then? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 14 Aanenson: That’s the sidewalk. We highlighted… Kay Knight: Alright, well see this is all green so if you look at it from here, I don’t see any white in here. When you were doing your diagram you would think that you would have the sidewalk going through here. Audience: It does appear that there is not a sidewalk on the south… Kay Knight: But it doesn’t appear. Audience: It does not appear that way. Kay Knight: That’s what I’m stating but don’t be rude. Aanenson: I’m just trying to clarify the question. Kay Knight: Well I’m just saying that there’s no sidewalk. Aller: Okay, I’m looking at the plan and I believe that this gray area here is a sidewalk and it’s bridged by concrete. Kay Knight: What gray area? I don’t see a gray area. I see green. Aller: Can you see it there? Aanenson: Mr. Chair again. Kay Knight: To me it looks like an edge so I’m just stating I was concerned. Aller: Okay, and I understand your concern and thank you for pointing it out but what I’m saying is. Kay Knight: I’m just saying. Aller: Unless I’m hearing differently that’s a sidewalk. Kay Knight: Well when they were explaining they were mumbling because you could barely hear them. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just clarify again. These are colored drawings that we did internally. All the copies of the plat and the site plans are in black and white and they’re labeled and so when you look at those copies as opposed to what we tried to illustratively show and clearly that wasn’t communicated well. They are shown in the drawings that are included in your site plan that show the sidewalk in a better way so apologize if that isn’t clear on the drawing. Kay Knight: And then my comment is, we have a huge undeveloped area across from St. Hubert’s that’s been sitting there for quite a few years where Houlihan’s is and where the American Inn is. I don’t know, I understand this building. I understand what you’re saying where you want to go there but was that ever taken in consideration that that might be a good site considering there’s a lot of parking already there and there’s large spaces to make it a small town community so that the senior citizens that do live in that senior area could walk to and maybe utilize the stores or the services that you’re trying to utilize here next to McDonalds. Was that ever considerated in looking at the sites in Chanhassen? Plus we also have the Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 15 other strip mall at the other end that is, I don’t know 300 square feet of empty leasing right next to that other gas station. I don’t know. I mean I’m just saying that why redevelop something when we have undeveloped, ready to go land that is 2 blocks away, across from Lakewinds if you know where Chanhassen is. Aller: And I appreciate your comment but I can’t force a developer. Kay Knight: I know but I don’t know if you looked at that. Aller: To develop in any particular. Kay Knight: Prices but. Aller: So anyone out there that wants to take that to heart. Kay Knight: I mean lots of people. Aller: Come make an offer on the property and develop it. Kay Knight: Alright. Aller: Okay. Any other? Jay Poucher: I have a technical question… As I’m, if I’m not mistaken, Highway 5 has a series of GPS timed sequence traffic lights that help flow traffic out and into the city. Is the traffic light that’s across 101. 101 and the City. The one that’s just north of here, is that light sequenced with this light? Fauske: You’re asking for the light signal at 101 and West 78th Street? Jay Poucher: Yeah it would be the light that’s north of this same location. Just on the other side of the railroad tracks. Fauske: I don’t know that that’s on the same sequencing. MnDOT does, they have a traffic operations department that takes a look at their corridors and they change, they can change, have the ability to change sequencing. Jay Poucher: Right. Fauske: The rest of the light signals, the traffic signals that are in a municipal system are typically on a looped detection based system and a timed system but usually there’s a loop detector in the roadway and I don’t know the exact timing or the sequencing. Jay Poucher: Right. And these two systems don’t ever cross. It’s not possible to have the, here’s where I’m going. If we wind up with a light in this intersection, can it time or will it have to be timed to the Highway 5 light? That’s where I’m going because I think it’s going to wind up being a Chanhassen light if we wind up doing something like that, and my question is, can they sequence these together? Aller: I think we’re putting the cart before the horse there because you’re going to have MnDOT come in and take a look at. Jay Poucher: Yes. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 16 Aller: And do the sequencing after there’s a traffic pattern. Jay Poucher: I see. I see. You’re right. Thank you. Aller: Yes sir. Bob Seward: I have a quick question. Bob Seward, 8031 Cheyenne Avenue. A 20 year resident. Andrew you asked a little earlier what restaurant was going in that facility. Did we ever get an answer? Aanenson: No. They’ve represented that it could be a pizza but we don’t know. Bob Seward: Could it be a fast food restaurant? Aller: So it’s not in stone so, is it zoned for it? Yes. It could be anything and I can’t dictate whether it’s a Chinese restaurant, an Italian restaurant, a pizza place. Bob Seward: Well I just wanted to comment that, I mean I think McDonalds right now has 1,300 trip generations a day compared to Ivan’s and all that up on the hill there on Lake Drive and if it’s a fast food restaurant then I think all the numbers are way under estimated. Kind of echoes what Ron had said earlier so I, that is kind of a critical point what type of restaurant goes in that facility. Aanenson: It’s a multi use building. Right now the traffic modeling we’re doing for the drive thru is for coffee. Bob Seward: The drive thru is coffee and not the restaurant? Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s what we’re modeling on right now. Bob Seward: Okay. Aller: And my understanding is, and if somebody wants to correct me if I’m wrong but for edification purposes, these studies are accumulated over time and that’s where we get our numbers from so from real life situations they go. They take a look at these drive thru’s and based on the square footage there, they give us a number and we take a look at that and we try to ballpark it as good as we can. There’s never a guarantee but we use all that anecdotal evidence so that we can make a good guess. Bob Seward: Yeah I was just concerned that the ballpark for like a Burger King versus a sit down restaurant is going to be light years away and it’s going to be more similar to McDonalds across the street which would be a huge number of trip generation. Aller: And for purposes of development unfortunately it’s, you build it and they will come. It’s zoned for a restaurant and now we’ll see who wants to come and be a restaurant in that location. Bob Seward: Well just for the record. I mean that’s going to change everything. Aller: I understand the concern. I understand the concern. Bob Seward: If it’s a high volume that’s going to change everything. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 17 Aller: And that was my question and I think the answer that we got was based upon the mix of use there, that we’re comfortable with the number that’s being used for the trip generation the way it is and we’ll see how it plays out. Bob Seward: Okay. Dave Schulman: Dave Schulman again. Down the street on Lake there was the Super Valu building. Is there any success in that area? Aller: Okay we have to stick to what’s before us tonight so we’re getting really far off… Dave Schulman: No, no, the traffic on Lake goes right past the old Super Valu building. Is anything happening with that because if anything positive with that, that would jump up your trips, right? I would guess. And another, the last thing that I think we might be done, do we get to see the beautiful front façade or the ugly back façade on Lake?   Aller: Can we see what’s there? That gives you the elevations. And my understanding is the signage will comply with code which means that it won’t. Dave Schulman: That’s the front there on top? Aller: So the south face, the top one would be the one that faces Lake. Dave Schulman: That faces Lake. Aller: Correct. Dave Schulman: Okay. Got it. Thank you. Lynne Pilgrim: I just want to say thank you very much for giving us your time and we appreciate your listening to us and we do hope that the developer does look at the safety of the intersection so thank you all of you. We appreciate it. Aller: Okay, with that I’m going to, unless I see someone else come up, we’re going to close the public hearing at this time. Open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Undestad: I’ll jump in. Aller: Okay, Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: You know it kind of hits like what we had here not too long ago where there’s an ongoing problem. There’s been a problem and it hasn’t been addressed because nothing’s gone on over there. But I think like that other project somebody bringing something forward actually raises awareness and now Alyson has a job to do to try to fix a problem out there. You know I think it’s the traffic, the study she’s done. What the numbers are and what they’re going to be, you know I think possibly some of that traffic might not even go through the intersection if they can get their coffee on the other side of the street. Not going through there. But I think as the traffic is the major concern for everybody. It’s all safety and we know that that’s, I mean I go through there a lot too. We all know that’s a, it’s a nasty intersection but I think part of this project by eliminating those access points out the front of Ivan’s now onto Dakota, I mean that will eliminate some of that. Hopefully the studies that come up here, you know if it’s stop signs. Stop lights or roundabouts or whatever might come in there but yeah I think, I mean the project Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 18 itself in itself is a good project and the traffic, I think the traffic’s going to get some work done on it now because of the project so. Aller: And I’ll just remind the commissioners that our approval is based on a limited discretion because it’s a situation where if they fit the zoning requirements then we don’t have any discretion to turn it down. Undestad: That’s all I got. Aller: Any other comments? Weick: I would just speak. I’m very happy that everyone is here representing your neighborhood. It’s a very important part of the process. Know that everything that you said and all the suggestions that you made, as well as the suggestions that the commission makes are on the record and that record is presented to the City Council and is part of this project moving forward so you are certainly heard and part of the record as we move this through the process. As my fellow commissioners know I’m very, I’m sensitive to traffic issues, especially when it’s in a neighborhood with families but I think for purposes of this because of the existing use of the property, and it’s similarity to the future use of the property, I’m confident that the traffic study that the City will conduct will produce the proper conclusions and will help the neighborhood with the issues that they have today and so I’m excited about the opportunity to redevelop this area. Thank you. Aller: Anyone else? Hokkanen: Well I’d like to say thank you to all the neighbors for coming out as well and I’ve been through that intersection many times and I do agree, it needs some attention and I think this project, like Mark said, will bring it to the forefront of the city. We had a similar project that brought up the same issue and I think that the project as it is, is a good project. It’ll be nice for the community. I do think once the traffic study is done we’ll be able to have some more answers and a positive conclusion that will help the safety of the neighborhood with the safety of the patrons of the new businesses. So thank you. Aller: Great. With that I’ll entertain any motions or action. Tennyson: I’ll make a motion to approve. Aller: Commissioner Tennyson. Tennyson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve a preliminary plat to replat 1.7 acres into one lot and one outlot and a site plan for the construction of an 8,000 square foot single level retail center on 1.51 acres of property zoned Highway and Business Services District and located at 7910 Dakota Avenue and the adjacent parcel to the west and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion before me. Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 19 the preliminary plat to replat 1.7 acres into one lot and one outlot, Planning Case 2014-11 as shown in plans dated received March 14, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Engineering Conditions 1.Before the final plat is recorded the Surface Water Management fees, Park Dedication fees, and GIS fees must be paid as well as any recording fees not collected with the final plat application. Park And Trail Conditions 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Dakota Retail. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based on the current proposed lot size of 1.51 acres and the city’s 2014 commercial/industrial park fee of $12,500 per unit, the total park fees for Dakota Retail would be $18,875. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Tennyson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 8,000 square-foot multi-tenant building, Planning Case 2014-11 as shown in plans dated received March 14, 2014, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Environmental Resource Conditions 1.The applicant shall provide a total of 25 understory trees along the north property line. 2.All trees that fall within the utility easement along the north property line shall be ornamental trees. 3.The final landscape shall be submitted to the city and include a plant schedule with listed quantities. Building Official Conditions 1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system (MN Rule 1306). 2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report required. 3.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 20 4.Demolition permit required (contact MPCA regarding underground, fuel storage tanks removal requirements). 5.Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height require professional design, permits and approvals. 6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal Conditions 1.An additional fire hydrant will be required on the south side of the property.  This location  has been discussed with the Engineering Department. 2.“ No Parking Fire Lane” signs may be required.  The developer must contact the Fire  Marshal for exact locations. Engineering Conditions 1.The final plan must include proposed signage and/or pavement markings on the north side of the building that will alert drivers to and prohibit drivers from entering the one-way traffic associated with the drive-thru. 2.The parking stalls on the east side of the site, adjacent to the drive-thru must meet the city’s minimum stall width, or marked as compact parking if proposed as such. 3.The “bump out” on the west side of the site must be minimum 26 feet face-of-curb to face-of -curb. 4.Installation of the new water and sewer services must be coordinated with city staff, including advanced notification of the partial street closure, the timing of the work to minimize traffic disruption, and on-site inspection of the utility connection. 5.A cash escrow for the street restoration must be submitted prior to recording the final plat. The escrow can be released after a minimum of one freeze-thaw cycle and once staff inspects the street restoration and deems the work is satisfactory. 6.A private hydrant must be installed on the south side of the site at a location approved by the Fire Marshal. 7.Indicate if existing private lights along the perimeter of the site are to remain or be removed. 8.The developer must provide staff with the proposed haul route for removal of the excess material from the site before grading operations begin. The haul route is subject to staff review and approval. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 21 9.All improvements in the Xcel easement, including but not limited to grading, site utility installation and landscaping must be approved by Xcel. 10.The final plans must include a note stating that the auxiliary utility pole south of the transmission tower on the north side of the site will be relocated, or else it must be incorporated into the plan. Any cost associated with relocating this pole shall be the developer’s responsibility. 11.The developer must coordinate the proposed grading in the northeast corner of the site with the affected small utilities, as the plans show altering the grade in the vicinity of two small utility pads. 12.The grading plan must be revised so that the proposed contours tie into the existing contours. 13.The storm pond must be lined to prevent potential in-situ soil contamination. 14.The developer must submit calculations verifying that the proposed storm pond meets the city’s minimum requirements. 15.Drain tile must be installed on the south side of the site. Planning Conditions 1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 2.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. Wall signs shall be limited to the north, east and south elevations. Wall and monument signage shall comply with the sign ordinance. All signs require a sign permit. 3.The exterior material for the trash enclosure must be of the same exterior material as the building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. 4.Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. All fixtures must be shielded. Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: With that the only recommendation I would make is, and it’s just that. A recommendation that perhaps staff can encourage a weekend review when it’s feasible to do so to be included in that survey. Aanenson: If I may just to remind anybody that’s tracking this item, it would be appearing before the City Council then on April 28th. So if you’re following this item. And I just want to Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 22 offer up too that we, see if somebody wants a couple of staff reports that we have here printed. Anybody that may not have one. PUBLIC HEARING: ARBOR COVE: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT OF 3.26 ACRES FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REZONING OF 3.26 ACRES FROM OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (OI) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF); AND PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF 54.67 ACRES INTO 5 LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3121 WESTWOOD DRIVE. APPLICANT: DOGWOOD ROAD, LLC. OWNER: WESTWOOD CHURCH, PLANNING CASE 2014-06. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. This planning case is Arbor Cove. Again this is the public hearing is tonight and this will go to City Council on April 28th. This property is located west of Highway 41 between West 78th Street and Tanadoona. On the west end it touches Dogwood and that’s actually where their residential subdivision will be taking place. I should point out that in the future you will see there’s a small corner of the property right off of West 78th Street that has a single family home on it. We will be bringing that in for rezoning. Currently it’s Rural Residential and it’s going to be zoned as part of the Westwood site for office institutional uses. The request before us tonight actually has 3 components. There’s a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of the residential portion of the development. The 3.26 acres off of Dogwood from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density. For some background, prior to this church going in there, in this site this whole area was guided for residential low density so that would be consistent with what’s there before there. Additionally they’re requesting a rezoning of the residential portion of the project from Office Institutional back to Single Family Residential. And finally they’re looking at preliminary plat approval for the 56.67 acres which is the entire property into 5 lots. 4 of the lots would be for single family homes and the fifth lot would remain with the church. Okay, a quick land use amendment. This area, again this area was previously guided for residential low density. To do the single family home development we need to change the land use back to low density and then the rezoning that would be, go with that. This land use is consistent with all the residential development surrounding it and we believe that it’s an appropriate use for this, on this part of the site and we will be recommending approval. The second part is the rezoning of the 4 single family lots on the west end from Office/Institutional to Single Family Residential. As part of our analysis under low density, residential low density there are several zoning categories that could be used. However the RSF is consistent with all the surrounding zoning and it permits this type of development so we think it’s the most appropriate rezoning for this and are recommending approval of that. Again the subdivision creates 4 single family lots that would access off of Dogwood and then the church lot to the east of it. The total site is 56.67 acres. All the lots exceed the minimum requirements in our code so they’re bigger than normal. As part of this development we’re looking at, the site is almost, it’s 98% canopy cover right now and so we’re trying to preserve as much of that as part of this development as possible. Oh I should go back for our land use map amendment. We did have a 60 day jurisdictional review that was required. That ended a week ago yesterday. There were no negative comments or objections to the proposed amendment so…go forward and we have had preliminary discussions with the Met Council and we will submit this through City Council as a minor amendment so they can have a shorter review time is required for that. Again the subdivision, all the lots on Dogwood would exceed the minimum requirements for single family home sites. Their preliminary grading plan showed they’re creating this swale area in the northwest corner of the site. It picks up water that’s currently coming off of these wetlands and from the development to the south and they’re putting in for the development an infiltration pond. However one of the concerns we had is they were concentrating the water in this swale system and so we are looking at creating a little bit more dispersion as it comes closer to the roadway and so it will Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 23 slow down the water moving down there and the applicant is agreeable to that and these are actually plans that they have provided to us. Again they need to provide an erosion and sediment control plan as part of the subdivision. They have a preliminary plan in here. One of the conditions that they create a SWPPP or a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the entire project because they have over an acre of grading that they’re doing and so those have best management practices and ways of preserving that. As part of their original proposal they were looking at providing a tree conservation easement along the eastern part of the properties. This point is 65 feet. Our City Forester, she thought that we should try to get closer to the grading limits that they’re showing as part of this. The developer has some concerns that at least this first lot is, becomes too constrained for development and they won’t have adequate use of their back yard. We are looking at between now and City Council that we can come up with a final solution for the depth of that easement area that would be acceptable to both the City and the developer. I should point out as part of this project, because of the tree preservation they are getting credits for their surface water management fees and so we think this would be a good tradeoff. The most northerly, or Lot 1 the easement would follow what they’re proposing in it and would follow the contours of the grading limits and then these would be again, what we proposed was 85 feet deep. In the southern end that would add 20 feet to that easement area and on this north end it would add 30 feet on Lot 2 so it sort of slants across that. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed development subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Any commissioners have questions at this time? Based upon the report I don’t have any. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Welcome. Todd Simning: Welcome, thank you. Todd Simning with Dogwood Development. I think the only open item really is just the tree preservation and I think we can come to a conclusion with that. As I spoke with Kate and Bob earlier tonight, we did another development, Wynsong just off of Galpin Boulevard and have had tree preservations before and they’re very constraining. Can’t put swing sets in there. Can’t put you know really you can’t do anything with them and so the one lot for sure was just a little tight where I was just saying, we’re really not encumbering any trees there and just want to make certain that we can maximize any back yard for somebody but obviously we wanted to preserve trees too because we think that brings value to the land and as it goes to the north and around we just want to make certain we can, can use as much as we can so I have a lot of confidence in working with the City and really don’t have any issues with trying to figure something out there so, with that I really don’t have anything other than that and we’ll come to a conclusion so. Aller: Great, I appreciate that. Todd Simning: And if guys have any questions for me. Aller: I appreciate you working on that because those overstory trees make such an impact in your biofiltration system and the buffer between the properties so it sounds like you’re on your way to creating a good plan. Todd Simning: Yes. Aller: Anyone else? Todd Simning: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 24 Aller: Thank you. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the item before us can do so at this time. Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record, that’d be great. John Getsch: John Getsch, 7530 Dogwood Road. I don’t know the actual of the property. It’s, we subdivided it off and they gave it some weird thing but anyway it’s directly diagonal off the southwest corner of the property on Dogwood Road. My concern is, I support the development. I think it’s but I do have some concerns. Originally when the road was set up there it narrowed right at that point, the south because there was not a plan for future development of that property. So the road is narrower there. It’s also on a curve. The bend in the road is on a curve with very steep gradient in there. And the driveways are coming down, it appears they come down quite steeply to the road. I think there may be an issue with them bottoming out on the road when they come out. One of the things I looked at was, where they come down. Having to make a, I think it says in there that the Planning Commission was concerned about the steepness of the grade on the front of the lots. Was that, did I read that correctly in there? Aanenson: Are you talking about the staff? In the staff report. The driveway. John Getsch: Yeah. Because it is quite steep if you come up that, you know with Lot 4 is quite steep where they’re trying to preserve that tree. I think that’s almost 8, 8-9 feet above the road in about 15 feet. And you come down and it’s also on the curve of the road and the next lot the, 1 and 2 I don’t see a problem with but I do see a problem with 3 and 4 for that, and actually my recommendation would be, contrary to what the past discussion was, would be to move the houses further back. Those two houses further back on the lot. Let them come along and then keep some of the native vegetation up there on the front side of the lot. Aanenson: Maybe Alyson, do you want to address it but you’re fighting grades trying to move the houses back. And the steepness of the driveway. Aller: And if I can ask Alyson to kind of piggyback on that. My understanding is the grading will be done at once and that part of the conditions here, the grading that is done is to meet the remaining grade so that there’s a nexus, a smooth transition. Fauske: Certainly I can address those questions. Aller: Thank you. John Getsch: Okay. Fauske: Good evening. John Getsch: Yeah. Good to see you again. Fauske: It’s good to see you as well. I had the pleasure of working with this neighborhood back when the street and utility project went in so speaking to some of John’s points and as some of the residents will recall, when the street and utility project was done in 2006-2007, just to give a little bit of background to the commission and those in the audience here that weren’t present at that time. Staff was working very closely with the neighborhood with regards to the street widths and so as John mentioned there is, the street does narrow at this location. Because there was some existing homes in that area that we wanted to be respectful of and tried to do some tree preservation in the area because the original road was I believe 12 or 14 feet wide. It was very narrow. So we did have some tree clearing associated with that and that’s why we didn’t build it to the standard 31 feet because of, to try to be considerate of the existing residents. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 25 It did widen to a 31 foot wide street where it transitioned into the new development. John Getsch: Well it’s actually right on the corner. On the south corner it does transition to a standard city width. Fauske: Yeah. So that was kind of a balancing act back when this project went through. With regards to the grades, both the vertical curves and the horizontal curves, again we were working within the constraints of the existing right-of-way. There was some acquisition done with this project but when you have the existing homes on the lake side of the road, there is, we were constrained as far as what we could do with doing some of the grades so there is a balancing act here with the grades both back when the street project went in and with the development as proposed. Speaking to the development proposal for their grading plan, when staff took a look at this and looked at the extent of the grading I think that there was a conversation with the developer that this lends itself to go in and get the grades to the point, as indicated on the grading plan, just for a balance perspective because if you have, depending on how the lots sell, to go in and grade one lot and then leave the next lot vacant and then try to tie the grades into another lot over, when you’re doing that leapfrog it doesn’t lend itself to a good grading plan in staff’s opinion so we did have that discussion with the applicant. John Getsch: I appreciate you. Fauske: And I think the developer might have something to add to that as well if the Planning Commission’s okay with him. Aller: Come forward so we can have a discussion. Todd Simning: John if I can, one of the items that we worked with the road down so high. You know that bank. John Getsch: Yeah. Todd Simning: It originally comes up like that. John Getsch: It’s quite steep, yeah. Todd Simning: Unfortunately we have to relocate all of the gas and all the electric because all of that is actually being shaved down right there. So that bank that comes up like this, we have to actually take out all the existing gas line and the existing power line. John Getsch: Because they’re not in the road. They’re up. Todd Simning: They’re up in that, in that kind of that, as the road goes up and that’s all going to be lowered down to give a lot better sight line across the roadway so if you guys drove down there you’d see that it really goes up and then even the electrical boxes are sitting up god, probably about 4 or 5 feet higher than the road and all of that is going to be lowered down and we actually have to pay CenterPoint Energy and Minnesota Valley Electric to come and bore new lines and so that we can grade all that down so sight lines from the road will be a lot better than what they actually appear to be right now so. John Getsch: Okay. So, but you are grading the one tree there is going to still be up fairly high. Todd Simning: Yes. Yeah because that one is, that one’s kind of off of a gosh, what do you call it? Off of the road and what we worked with the City on is said we’re going to try to preserve that one so we Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 26 don’t really know if that one, we’re not really getting credit for it. Okay as canopy and tree cover but we’re going to try to save it because we think we can because, I mean I like trees and I think it’s a great benefit to the. John Getsch: Yeah, that’s why when I looked at that. Todd Simning: But I’m not certain if it will actually be there. John Getsch: Both Lots 3 and 4. Todd Simning: To the south. John Getsch: The two south lots have those located further back but you could preserve quite a few trees and then leave the front more of a wild front and then come in. But like you said, you have to grade for the, you have to change for the utilities anyway. Todd Simning: Yes, and then the negative about bringing the trees back as we’re working with the tree preservation is there’s really, really nice trees in the back yard that the City wants to preserve so that was kind of the give and take on trying to figure out exactly. John Getsch: Well the houses end up actually where they came through and cleared off for all the utility lines back 15 years ago. They clear cut a path right straight up through there. Todd Simning: Yes. Yep. So thank you. John Getsch: That’s all that I wanted to mention on that. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Todd Dillon: Todd Dillon, 7481 Dogwood Road. Aller: Welcome Mr. Dillon. Todd Dillon: My house is the last house that Pulte put in, The Arbors. Todd Simning: Yep. Todd Dillon: Does this development start right next to mine? Todd Simning: Yes. Todd Dillon: Okay, because there’s already a real estate sign there. Kro. Todd Simning: Kroiss. Todd Dillon: Yeah. So they’re. Todd Simning: Dogwood Development is actually my partner Steve and I. We own Kroiss Development and we’re builders also. Todd Dillon: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 27 Todd Simning: But as developer we’re developing another Dogwood Development. Todd Dillon: Okay, because I see there’s a lot. There’s two, I saw them come in and do the surveying and there’s two of those signs but then there’s a big Chanhassen development sign so how come. Todd Simning: We just didn’t put enough signs out there. Todd Dillon: Okay. So that, the church, Westwood owned all of that property and you all have purchased that and that’s where it starts? Todd Simning: Yes. Todd Dillon: Okay. I just wanted to get that clear because I didn’t know where Dogwood Development came in there so, okay. Aller: Great. Alright we’re going to close the public hearing. Commissioner comments or questions. I think it looks like a good development and I think a good use of the existing tree cover, which is important. Looks like the drainage and bio scenario is going to be good as far as the runoff on the water that we were working with the swale and slowing that down which is I think important at making sure there’s infiltration so that looks really good to me. Anyone else? I’ll entertain a motion at this time. Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 3.26 acres from Public/Semi- Public to Residential Low Density, Rezoning of 3.26 acres from Office Institutional District to Single Family Residential District and Preliminary Plat review of 54.67 acres into 5 lots subject to the conditions and approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 3.26 acres from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 acres from Office Institutional District to Single Family Residential District; and Preliminary Plat review of 54.67 acres into 5 lots subject to the conditions and approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations: Parks & Recreation 1.In lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, full park dedication fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. At today’s rate, these fees would total $23,200 (4 lots x $5,800 per lot). Building 1.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 28 2.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. 3.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. 4.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. Natural Resources 1.The applicant shall plant a total of 29 trees in the development. A revised landscape plan shall be required prior to final plat approval. 2.The applicant shall remove Amur maple from the plant list and replace it with an alternate ornamental tree. 3.Prior to any grading, the applicant shall install tree preservation fencing using metal stakes around tree #33 on Lot 4. The fencing shall be placed at the dripline or the furthest point possible from the trunk and no closer than 20 feet. Within the fencing, the applicant shall spread a 3 to 4-inch layer of woodchips to protect the root zone. These protections shall remain in effect until construction is completed. 4.A tree conservation easement shall be recorded east of the grading limits on Lot 1, over the rear 85 feet of Lots 2 through 3 4 and over the rear 75 feet of Lot 4. The applicant shall supply a legal description for the easement. 5.Easement signage shall be placed on the lot lines at the point of intersection with the easement on Lots 2 through 4. Signage shall be placed at points of directional change on Lot 1. Signs shall be approved by the city. Engineering 1.The grading plan shows steep slopes on Lots 2 and 4. Grading must be revised so that no slope is steeper than 3:1. 2.Grading plans must be revised to show existing and proposed elevations at each lot corner and the center of the proposed driveways at the curb line. 3.The developer’s engineer must revise plans to include spot elevations and building corner elevations that direct water flow away from all structures. 4.Grading plan must show spot elevations to illustrate where water will flow at the back of Lot 3. 5.The EOF shall be noted with arrows showing the direction of the overflow. 6.Include a lot benching detail in the plans. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 29 7.Draintile service must be provided for Lots 3 and 4, which have drainage flows from the back to the front of the lot. 8.Proposed stockpile areas must be indentified in the plans. 9.All existing easements shown in the plans must be properly referenced with the document number or plat they were dedicated under. 10.A conservation easement is proposed along the back of Lots 2, 3 and 4 as well as the east corner of Lot 1. 11.A new drainage and utility easement over the filtration basin and the channel on Lot 1 will provide the City access to these stormwater facilities. 12.The developer’s engineer must include the elevation of the top and bottom of the retaining walls. 13.The following retaining wall materials are prohibited: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber. 14.Grading must be revised to include a swale at the top of the retaining walls for drainage. 15.The topography shown must include elevation contours for Dogwood Road adjacent to the proposed lots. The centerline gradients must be labeled. The developer’s engineer must incorporate pressure-reducing valves and a surge protection system into the watermain plans. 16.At the time of final plat, the Dogwood Road improvements assessment must be paid or reassessed. 17.Partial water and sewer hookup fees must be paid at the time of final plat. Water Resources 1.A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including all required elements listed in the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Program must be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval. 2.No native soils may be used in the filtration soil. Instead Mix B from the MN Stormwater Manual - 70% washed sand and 30% leaf-litter compost mixture shall be used. 3.Pretreatment practices to be employed shall be shown on the plan view and in the detail sheet. This shall be shown at the curb cut. It is highly recommended that something similar to the Rain Guardian developed by Anoka Conservation District be used. The pretreatment device must be approved by the City. 4.It shall be called out on both grading plans that steps shall be taken to prevent compaction and siltation of the area resulting from construction activities on the site. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 30 5.Remove the filter fabric from the detail and use a choker course of rock instead. 6.The underdrain shall be smooth walled and have a tracer wire. 7.A knife gate valve shall be included prior to the underdrain entering the proposed 27-inch manhole. This valve shall be reasonable easy to access. 8.Calculations shall be provided demonstrating that the feature will draw down within 48 hours. 9.Efforts shall be made to decrease the depth as close as possible to the 9.6 inches but no greater than the 14.4 inches recommended for MH HSG B soils. 10.Side slopes shall be no steeper than 5:1 and as close to 10:1 as possible except that the south boundary may be up to 3:1. 11.The feature shall be kept offline until the vegetation has been established. Plans and the SWPPP must include this information and describe the methodology to be used to achieve this. 12.A detailed planting plan and schedule must be developed and included in plan set for approval 13.The in-situ soils shall be ripped to a depth of 12 inches prior placing the amended filtration soils. 14.The developer shall be responsible for the construction of the biofiltration feature and shall make assurances that the plant materials, mulch and side slopes into biofiltration feature are maintained throughout the life of the feature. This is most typically accomplished though a Homeowners Association. The city will be responsible for maintenance of the underdrain, outlet pipe and inlet protection device at the curb. An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed describing how the feature will be maintained and by who will be responsible for the maintenance. 15.The applicant shall include tree 119 and 129 into the protection plan. 16.The drainage and utility easement shall extend from top of bank to top of bank for the proposed channel. 17.The 988 and 986 contours shall be broadened to create a more laminar flow before discharging onto city right-of-way. 18.The plan shall maintain a separation of at least two (2) feet between peak flow elevation in the channel during the 100-year storm event and the top of bank for that portion behind the proposed structure on Lot 1. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 31 19.The SWPPP as well as the erosion control plan must indicate how the conveyance from the wetland will be permanently stabilized. 20.A detail of the rock checks must be included. This shall be consistent with Technical Supplement 14C to Part 654 of the National Engineering Handbook. 21.An estimated surface water management connection fee of $14,066.50 will be due with the final plat. 22.The plans must meet all requirements set forth by other agencies with authority over the site. The applicant is responsible to procure all necessary approvals and permissions. This includes, among others, the MN Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Planning 1.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the land use map amendment from Public/Semi -Public to Residential Low Density. 2.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 3.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the rezoning from Office Institutional District to Single-Family Residential. 4.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aanenson: And this item appears before the City Council on their April 28th meeting. Aller: Thank you. And again all the documents are on the website. Moving onto item number 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENTS: CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS (SECTION 18-61) , AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING (ARTICLE VIII PUD DISTRICT AND ARTICLE XXIII GENERAL SUPPLEMENTAL); AND CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller. Commissioners. Aller: Excuse me, can you go outside. Thank you. Generous: Most of these amendments you’ve seen before and so we’re just coming back to, we have to hold a public hearing before we can take them to City Council and have any adoptions to them. Again your review responsibilities for Chapters 18 and 20 which are Subdivision and the Zoning ordinance. In Chapter 18 we’re looking at the tree requirements in our ordinance and everyone knows about the Emerald Ash Borer and so we’re eliminating that as an approved tree within our ordinance. We’re also Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 32 doing some clean up for consolidating all the tree species. Instead of listing them separately we’re saying if you want to have a maple you can have a maple. The only exception is platanoides which Jill told me to put that name in and I don’t know exactly what it is but it doesn’t do very well up here and it’s susceptible to disease. And then again all the oaks are acceptable trees in our community so we felt that rather than try to list them all we’d just put it as a generic name and they can come in. The other part of 18-61 that we were changing is trying to get more diversity in the trees that are planted so we’re limiting to 20% any one genus of tree and 10% any specific species of tree so we’ll get a little more variety again so that you have long term health. They don’t all get wiped out at one time like the elms in Minneapolis or the Emerald Ash Borer in the rest of the community and up north eventually. So those are the changes to 18-61 and it’s 3 sections within that. The second part is changes to Chapter 20 which is a Zoning Ordinance. We’re on page, it starts on page 5, Section 20-904. What we’re doing is there’s a little bit of confusion. Docks have their own separate ordinance. It’s in Section 20-920 so we’re saying look there if you want to know what the requirements are for docks and so we excluded from the accessory structures discussion in Section 904. 20 Section 908, we’re trying to come up with some, there’s some exceptions to the setback requirements and so we want to make a distinction between those that are associated with the principal structure or anything attached to the principal structure and those are the only ones that received these specific exceptions. Because if you have a detached structure there’s also some exceptions that are in the regulations so a little bit of, and Section 20-909, Subsection 6(a). There’s just a wrong word. We use principal meaning the main idea as opposed to principle meaning an idea. So that change in Section 6(a). In Section 20-960 the current ordinance references the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. I think we’re in the third iteration. It was last adopted in 2006 so we’re going to, in the future we’ll reference the most recently adopted ordinance so when we make a change and we’ll probably have one coming up in the next year or two, we don’t have to go back and change the City Code. So that’s the changes to Chapters 18 and 20. And then while we don’t have review responsibility over Chapter 1, we wanted to, we’re looking at defining what an expansion is for non-conforming uses because currently there isn’t any and so we looked at Minnetonka and Lakeville’s ordinance and we wanted to get beyond just the discussion of expanding a structure or the size of the structure but also look at the intensity of the non-conforming use and say that if you increase that, that is an expansion of the non-conformity and it has to meet City Code requirements so. And then finally under Lot, flag and neck lot. We used to have a schematic that showed what they were talking about because pictures are easier for people to understand. Somehow got dropped when it was codified and we just want to put that back in so we’re requesting that Planning Commission move these items forward for City Council review and approval. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Questions? I will move to comments then and just say that I think it’s great that we’ve cleaned up a lot of things that can cause people to be confused and anytime we can do that it’s a good thing so it’s much appreciated and I think it follows the intent of what we were trying to do originally when we talked about it in work session so. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion. If any. Tennyson: There is a motion. I’ll move. Aller: Commissioner Tennyson. Tennyson: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapters 1, 18, and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Hokkanen: Second. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 33 Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapters 1, 18, and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Aller: If someone would note the Minutes of the April1st work session and meeting. Hokkanen: So noted. Weick: I would make one comment there. Commissioner Weick was present at those meetings and he’s listed as absent. Tennyson: Good correction. Generous: Nice catch. Weick: Because sometimes I am not present. I want to be sure that I am present. Aller: And I want to thank Commissioner Tennyson for taking over the Chair and doing such a great job. Tennyson: Thank you. Aller: So the Minutes are noted. Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 1, 2014 as presented and the amended Work Session Summary Minutes dated April 1, 2014 showing Commissioner Steve Weick as present. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: No City Council update. Aanenson: I don’t know that I have one. Aller: Future agenda items. Aanenson: Yeah we can go to future agendas. Unless you have something Bob. I don’t have any update. In your packet I did give you some new business signs that are in, so we’ve got 3 new businesses in town. And then I just want to review with you upcoming agendas. The City Council will be, is planning on not having a meeting on July 14th so if we have projects that would come in on that June 17th, there’s a big gap between the 17th so we always try to gauge that. And for you, the July 1st week historically we have not had a meeting. There’s a lot of people traveling. Sometimes it’s hard to get a quorum. The 4th of July is a few days later so right now, while it was shown on here, it’s my intent to probably not have that unless there’s some strong feelings but we’ll try to juggle those. We are working with some other projects. Some of those are brought up by the neighbors tonight. There are some projects in the area still that may come to fruition. And speaking of that, so on your May 6th we do have a subdivision. This one on Chaska Road. It’s one home on a larger lot. It’s an outlot being platted. There’s also revoking some Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 34 Conditional Uses that are no longer in existence. Speaking with the City Attorney we do need to take a formal process for revocation so you’ll hold a hearing on those and they’ll go up to City Council on consent. We are also doing the rezoning. Bob Generous just talked about that. The church owns that property. That house so it’s really kind of an errand mapping that we should probably rezone that so we are going to rezone that one little piece of property. It’s ancillary to the principal structure of the church so it’s, what did we find out today? It’s 2 1/2, 2 acres? Generous: 1.25. Aanenson: Oh, 1.25 acres so that little house on the corner going into the subdivision there. And then we may go into a work session to do some Planning Commission interviews so we are advertising for that so. If anybody knows anybody that’s interested in that so. Aller: Great. Aanenson: And any feedback that you can give us on our presentations. You know clearly it seemed like we were mis-communicating some of that information tonight so if you want to give us some feedback on that, we try hard to color them so people can see but if you want to give us some feedback on that, we’d appreciate any direction you give us on that. So we will have a meeting in 2 weeks and we’ll kind of gauge stuff so we kind of miss that, have to get to that June 17th. Either advise people. They may want to wait or, because we’ll have that gap, and then try to cancel that July 1st so people can do their 4th of July plans there so that’s all I had Chairman and Commissioners. Aller: Thank you. And the last thing I have is I received information regarding linking land use to clean water, which is a workshop invitation to elected and appointed officials and there are two sessions. One May 8th with Barr Engineering in Edina and one May 14th and it looks like they’re same program given twice at, the second one’s at the Bayview Event Center in Excelsior. They’re both from 5:00 to 8:30 so if any of the commissioners are interested, I know I’m going to be going to at least one, if not both to make sure that I’m up on the current items. Aanenson: I did have one other item and I believe I spoke about this at the work session but, Bob’s been working on, we’re trying to figure out what we have for vacant commercial land in the core. The council asked about that and we’re looking at the other vacant land that’s currently serviceable by sewer and water and then we’ve just completed with our consultant what we’ve got at the bottom of the 61 corridor so those are all going to be on a work session and then that will be the same work session we have with the council so I think we would have that as a joint meeting. Feed everybody and then have an opportunity so you can understand kind of where we are with all that too. I think it’d be a great opportunity to kind of interface and kind of get up to date because all that information then really kind of parlays forward as we go to the Comprehensive Plan update starting in 2007 so we’re kind of building that data point and collection and see where we’re at and yeah, so. Aller: Great. Aanenson: With that, that’s all I had. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Tennyson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014 35 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim