The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet 4-14-14AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2014 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Discuss Neighborhood Park Picnic Shelter Initiative picnic shelters.pdf Athletic Fields Needs Assessment athletic field lighting.pdf Update on Water Wise Program. water wise update.pdf REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Invitation to Easter Egg Candy Hunt easter egg candy hunt.pdf 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 March 24, 2014 03 -24 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 03 -24 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 03 -24 -14 -cc.pdf Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 18, 2014 and April 1, 2014 03 -18 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 03 -18 -14 -pc.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc -ws - sum.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc.pdf Approve Resolution Accepting Donations from Community Sponsor Program sponsor donations.pdf 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. pioneer pass park.pdf Lift Station #3: Approve Quote for Replacement of Standby Generator. ls3 generator.pdf 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. mn river crossing csah 61 wap.pdf TH 101 River Crossing Project, Approval of Extending Work Hours and Night Working Hours. river crossing project working hours.pdf Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with Sprint sprint cell tower lease.pdf Award of Contract, Fourth of July Fireworks, 2014 -2016 fireworks contract.pdf Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 25, 2014 03 -25 -14 -prc -sum.pdf, 03 -25 -14 -prc.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda. NEW BUSINESS 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) boulder 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. Documents: E. 1. Documents: 2. Documents: 3. Documents: 4. Documents: 5. Documents: 6. Documents: 7. Documents: 8. Documents: 9. Documents: 10. Documents: F. G. 1. Documents: H. I. J. Documents: K. AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, APRIL 14, 2014CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOMDiscuss Neighborhood Park Picnic Shelter Initiativepicnic shelters.pdfAthletic Fields Needs Assessmentathletic field lighting.pdfUpdate on Water Wise Program.water wise update.pdfREGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSCALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSInvitation to Easter Egg Candy Hunteaster egg candy hunt.pdfCONSENT 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 March 24, 201403-24 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 03 -24 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 03 -24 -14 -cc.pdfReceive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 18, 2014 and April 1, 2014 03 -18 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 03 -18 -14 -pc.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc -ws -sum.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc.pdfApprove Resolution Accepting Donations from Community Sponsor Program sponsor donations.pdf 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. pioneer pass park.pdf Lift Station #3: Approve Quote for Replacement of Standby Generator. ls3 generator.pdf 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. mn river crossing csah 61 wap.pdf TH 101 River Crossing Project, Approval of Extending Work Hours and Night Working Hours. river crossing project working hours.pdf Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with Sprint sprint cell tower lease.pdf Award of Contract, Fourth of July Fireworks, 2014 -2016 fireworks contract.pdf Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 25, 2014 03 -25 -14 -prc -sum.pdf, 03 -25 -14 -prc.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda. NEW BUSINESS 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) boulder 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.Documents:E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3. Documents: 4. Documents: 5. Documents: 6. Documents: 7. Documents: 8. Documents: 9. Documents: 10. Documents: F. G. 1. Documents: H. I. J. Documents: K. AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, APRIL 14, 2014CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION IN THE FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOMDiscuss Neighborhood Park Picnic Shelter Initiativepicnic shelters.pdfAthletic Fields Needs Assessmentathletic field lighting.pdfUpdate on Water Wise Program.water wise update.pdfREGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERSCALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSInvitation to Easter Egg Candy Hunteaster egg candy hunt.pdfCONSENT 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 March 24, 201403-24 -14 -cc -ws.pdf, 03 -24 -14 -cc -sum.pdf, 03 -24 -14 -cc.pdfReceive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 18, 2014 and April 1, 2014 03 -18 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 03 -18 -14 -pc.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc -ws -sum.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc -sum.pdf, 04 -01 -14 -pc.pdfApprove Resolution Accepting Donations from Community Sponsor Program sponsor donations.pdfApprove 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.pioneer pass park.pdfLift Station #3: Approve Quote for Replacement of Standby Generator.ls3 generator.pdfHighway 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.mn river crossing csah 61 wap.pdfTH 101 River Crossing Project, Approval of Extending Work Hours and Night Working Hours.river crossing project working hours.pdfApproval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with Sprintsprint cell tower lease.pdfAward of Contract, Fourth of July Fireworks, 2014 -2016fireworks contract.pdfReceive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 25, 201403-25 -14 -prc -sum.pdf, 03 -25 -14 -prc.pdfVISITOR PRESENTATIONSSee guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda.NEW BUSINESSBOULDER 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)boulder cove.pdfCOUNCIL PRESENTATIONSADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONSCORRESPONDENCE 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.Documents:E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.Documents:5.Documents:6.Documents:7.Documents:8.Documents:9.Documents:10.Documents:F.G.1.Documents:H.I.J. Documents: K. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 24, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:15 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt COMMISSION INTERVIEWS. City Council members interviewed the following commission applicants: Jacob Stolar, Brent Carron, David Wisniewski, Carol Buesgens, Matthew Myers, and Luke Thunberg After the interviews, council members discussed appointments. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 7:05 p.m. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MARCH 24, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson and Terry Jeffery Mayor Furlong read from a Certificate before introducing Assistant Chief Murphy who made a presentation in recognition of Mark Littfin’s 40 years of service in the Chanhassen Fire Department as well as presenting flowers to his wife Derice and fire fighters helmet to his son, Chris Littfin who is an honorary member of the fire department. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Laufenburger seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1.Approval of City Council Minutes dated March 10, 2014 2.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 4, 2014 3.Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 25, 2014 and Work Session Minutes dated March 11, 2014 4.Resolution #2014-17: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project: Call Assessment Hearing 5.Resolution #2014-18: 2014 Vehicles & Equipment: Approve Annual Purchases 7.Resolution #2014-19: Approve Resolution for Advancing State Aid Funds for Lyman Boulevard Improvements 8.Approval of Liquor License Renewals 9.Approval of Collaborative Agreement with Carver County for ESRI (GIS) Software 10.Deleted 11.Resolution #2014-20: 2014 Sealcoat Project: Approve Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract 12.Powers Pointe: Approve Access Easement Agreement 13.Approval of Arbor Day Poster Contest Winners. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Summary – March 24, 2014 2 LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Lt. Jeff Enevold presented Citizen Coins to Nick and Jackie Warren for their assistance in a DWI. In addressing concerns from a resident who felt Chanhassen deputies were writing too many citations, he showed 6 years of statistics showing the number of traffic stops to citations issued with an average of 43% of traffic stops resulting in a citation being issued. Lt. Enevold explained that the spring Citizens Academy has been postponed to fall due to a low number of applications, and provided an update on the public safety seminar held on Tuesday, March 18th at the Scale facility. Councilman Laufenburger asked about issues with E cigarettes and asked Lt. Enevold to keep the council informed if issues do arise in the future. Mayor Furlong asked if Lt. Enevold saw any trends regarding Part I crimes involving thefts. Assistant Fire Chief Cori Wallis reported on the year to date calls for service statistics, fire investigations currently underway, and equipment testing. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about the status on inspections for the property where the fatal fire occurred. BUSINESS IMPACT GROUP: REQUEST FOR REZONING FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 39,240 SQ. FT. OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); LOCATED ON PART OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, 2410 GALPIN BOULEVARD. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the location of the northern landscaping. Peter Larson with Waytek expressed concern with the proposed vegetation along the northern property line and a replacement plan if the vegetation doesn’t grow. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the minor amendment to the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) to increase the maximum building square footage within the development; and the Site Plan Review to construct a 39,240 square foot office/warehouse building subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City. 2.The developer shall pay the park fee of $23,121.00 with the building permit. 3.The developer shall install a pedestrian access to the Galpin Boulevard trail. 4.The developer shall provide benches and/or picnic tables for employees. 5.The developer shall provide detail of the bioretention areas is provided showing: a.Any soil amendments and corrections, b.Pre-treatment practices to be employed and these shall be shown on the plan view and in the detail sheet (It is highly recommended that something similar to the Rain Guardian developed by Anoka Conservation District be used.), and City Council Summary – March 24, 2014 3 c.Steps that will be taken to prevent compaction and siltation of the area resulting from construction activities on the site. 6.Hydrologic calculations demonstrating that the features will draw down in 48 hours or less are provided. 7.Hydrologic and water quality calculations demonstrating the features will treat 1-inch water quality volume from impervious areas is provided. 8.An exhibit showing pre- and post-development drainage is provided. 9.Calculations shall be provided demonstrating that no increase in runoff rates will result at any point leaving the site after build out. 10.The SWPPP shall be modified such that it is a standalone document which includes all elements required by the permit. At a minimum this shall include the following elements: a.A narrative of construction activity per Part IIIA 1. b.A listing of the chain of responsibility for oversight of SWPPP implementation per Part IIIA 2. c.Training documentation for those involved in the design and implementation of the SWPPP per Part IIIF. d.Designs and calculations for meeting Stormwater Discharge Requirements although it is understood that this project was originally permitted under different rules so design requirements will be to that approval as administered by Carver County WMO. e.Estimated preliminary quantities tabulation for al erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs per Part IIIA 5. f.Impervious coverage pre-development and post-development per Part IIIA 5. g.Site map showing soil types per Part IIIA 5. h.A map of surface waters and wetlands within one-mile of site which will receive stormwater. The SWPPP must identify if these are special or impaired waters. Lake Hazeltine receives runoff from the site and is listed as a 303D impaired water. i.The SWPPP must indicate who is responsible for the maintenance of the permanent stormwater management practices on the site and a maintenance plan to assure performance of the practice as listed in Part IIIA 5 k. j.The plans must show all elements required under part IV.C of the permit. 11.The existing Storm Catch Basin identified as ST CB on sheet C5.01A shall either be abandoned and have the conveyance eliminated or shall have inlet protection provided prior to disturbance within the area tributary to the CB. This shall be shown on the plan sheet and included within the Sequence of Construction. 12.The bioretention area must be designed and constructed following the guidelines set forth in the on-line Minnesota Stormwater Manual. City Council Summary – March 24, 2014 4 13.Because the site connects to city infrastructure, the City and/or their representatives shall be represented at the pre-construction meeting and shall approve the installation of BMPs. The Sequence of Construction shall be changed to reflect this. 14.Bioretention areas cannot be brought on-line until all tributary areas are stabilized. The Sequence of Construction shall reflect this. 15.Inlet protection shall be called out at all curb cut areas and the practice shall be included in the details. The Sequence of Construction shall reflect this need. 16.The swale areas must be stabilized with ditch checks, erosion control blanket or other approved best management practice. 17.Silt fence or other acceptable perimeter control practices shall be extended to protect all down gradient areas including the entire frontage along Galpin Court and shall be shown on both C5.01A and C5.02A. 18.The Sequence of Construction found on Sheet C5.02 A shall have “if required by contract” removed. 19.On sheet C5.03A, the city does not allow for the use of wooden posts for silt fence. The silt fence detail must be modified to reflect this. 20.On sheet C5.03A, change Maintenance Note 7 to include compaction and sediment protection from all construction related activities. 21.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 Carver County Watershed Management Organization. 22.The developer must submit a soils report to the City. 23.The engineer shall revise the proposed grading plan to show the existing and proposed elevation at the corners of the proposed building. 24.The plan shall be revised to show locations of proposed stockpile areas. 25.The plan shall be revised to show the top and bottom wall elevations at points along the wall. 26.The engineer shall show the truck turning movements in the loading area on the plan. 27.The plan must follow all applicable State and Federal guidelines, including ADA standards for the sidewalk reconstruction. City Council Summary – March 24, 2014 5 28.Sanitary sewer and water main to be installed for this project shall be privately owned and maintained. 29.The applicant shall work with staff to develop a revised landscaping plan, which shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Additional landscaping shall be installed along the north property line. Suitable species for the area next to the building include arborvitae, such as Techny, and columnar trees such as Apollo or Sugar Cone maple. To block views of the truck loading docks, the applicant shall install a hedge along the property line north of the loading docks. The shrub materials selected should provide year round coverage to a mature height of at least 5’ – 6’. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: E(6). LYMAN BOULEVARD WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OF THE SEGMENT OF CSAH 18 BETWEEN CSAH 15 (AUDUBON ROAD) AND CSAH 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD), APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY. Mark Anderson with MFRA, representing PPB Holding, asked that this item be tabled so they can work with Carver County to address wetland impacts that will occur within the temporary easement on his client’s property and amend the report to accurately address the drainage concerns. Terry Jeffery spoke to the sequencing and the wetland replacement design issues in the procurement of easements. Bill Weckman, representing Carver County Public Works, reviewed his meeting with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dorsey in February where the concerns of the PPB Holding property were discussed. After extensive questions and clarification between council members, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dorsey and Bill Weckman, the following motion was made. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-05 and WCA Permit Number 2013-01 for the purpose of the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 (Lyman Boulevard) Roadway Improvements Project, Phase 3; and authorizes the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in application dated February 11, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2.An appeal has been filed on behalf of Mr. Rick Dorsey. This is an appeal of staff decision to deny a request for a No-Loss determination for Wetland 1A. Any approval of mitigation quantities shall be contingent upon the outcome of this appeal. The county may hold any additional credits and apply those credits to future phases of the Lyman (CSAH 18) reconstruction project. 3.If it is determined that secondary impacts will occur to wetland 1A as a result of the proposed improvements, these impacts will need to be mitigated for at a 2:1 ratio. City Council Summary – March 24, 2014 6 4.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 5.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 6.The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 7.The applicant must obtain, and the city must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 8.A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to city prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve the following commission appointments: Environmental Commission: 3 Year Term: Katie Mahannah and Matthew Myers Senior Commission: 3 Year Term: Carol Buesgens and David Wisniewski; 2 Year Term: Jean Mancini Park and Recreation Commission: 3 Year Term: Brent Carron, Luke Thunberg and Steve Scharfenberg; 1 Year Youth Commission Term: Jacob Stolar and Tyler Kobilarcsik Planning Commission: 3 Year Term: Mark Undestad All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman McDonald reported on the AIS symposium he attended hosted by the watershed district. Mayor Furlong discussed the Buy Chanhassen luncheon where he will be discussing city events. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt announced that the City has hired the first full time Fire Chief, Don Johnson who will start May 5th. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2014 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson and Terry Jeffery Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome everybody. Glad that you joined us this evening. Those here in the council chambers as well as those watching at home. At this time I would ask members of the council if there are any changes or modifications to the agenda. If not we’ll proceed with the agenda as published without objection. We have a presentation we’d like to do tonight in recognition of Mark Littfin’s 40 years of service in the Chanhassen Fire Department so at this time I’d like to invite Assistant Chief Murphy to come forward and, Mr. Gerhardt perhaps you’ll join me down there as well. Assistant Chief Murphy: Thank you. Good evening. Well it’s an honor to be up here on behalf of everybody here at the Chanhassen Fire Department to recognize one of our longest serving members that’s served on the fire department. On May 10, 1073 Mark Littfin joined the Chanhassen Fire Department and to put that in perspective, 23 of our current active fire fighters were not even born when Mark joined on his first day with Chanhassen so with that, in his 40 plus years since 1973 Mark has pretty much done it all. He’s been a fire fighter. He’s been an officer. Lieutenant. Captain. Engineer. Assistant Chief and through all that leadership what he has done is, he’s brought compassion. He’s brought vision and he’s made every one of us that you see here, sitting here wearing these nice pretty uniforms, we’re all better fire fighters for it. So without further ado, Mark could you come on up? Mayor Furlong: Stand in the middle there. On behalf of the Chanhassen City Council Mark, thank you for your years of service represented with a Certificate this evening and some other things. I’d just like to read for everybody what’s on this Certificate. Presented by the Chanhassen, City of Chanhassen and Chanhassen Fire Department to Mark Littfin for outstanding service with the Chanhassen Fire Department from May 10, 1973 to December 24, 2013. After 40 plus years of service Mark Littfin will retire from the Chanhassen Fire Department. He is the second longest serving member of the department in it’s history. Over the course of his career he is, as a paid on call member Mark has served in a variety of roles as we just heard. Fire fighter. Captain. Fire Marshal. Assistant Chief. Even as Mark was hired by the City as a full time Fire Marshal in 1988, he continued to serve paid on call member for the department for over 25 years. Mark has been a great asset to our fire department and to the citizens of Chanhassen. We’ll miss his knowledge, dedication, experience, passion and Mark we’re just going to miss you being out there and making those early morning calls and you’re staying on with the City though? Mark Littfin: Yes I am. I still love what I do. Mayor Furlong: So this is not a retirement from the City. Just from the fire department so we’ll miss you in your role in the fire department so congratulations. (Applause). Chief you have some input. Assistant Chief Murphy: Yes. Can we have Derice come up because as all of you know being an on call volunteer fire department we carry pagers and our significant others put up with us and Derice, you’re in this just as much as Mark was and so we’d like to. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 2 Mayor Furlong: You’re giving her my flowers? Derice Littfin: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Assistant Chief Murphy: And not only has Mark and Derice put 40 plus years into this, their son Chris has been a significant part of not only their family but our family. I’ve known Chris since I got on 17 years ago. Chris has probably been there longer so Chris why don’t you come on up. Chris is also an honorary member of the Chanhassen Fire Department. He’s been there every Monday night, almost for I don’t know however long it’s been. Since before I met him and we got Chris his own helmet…and Chris pretty much went wherever we went so thanks Chris. Todd Gerhardt: You get to say a few things. Mark Littfin: Let me get my act together here. This all started, it started with my grandfather. He was on Winsted Fire Department. He was 47 years. I couldn’t quite get to that. 25 years of that was Chief which is unbelievable. So I still, I started when I was, or I started here he was still alive so we told some stories back and forth. Skipped a generation with my dad. He did 25 missions as a pilot and he probably had enough of that type of stuff so I got kind of into this working at the Dinner Theater. Saturday night was emergency and I thought this looks kind of pretty cool so that’s kind of what got me going. Then a couple guys that worked at the Bronco Bar, Rick Anding was, he’d get me going because he was talking it up all the time. A couple other guys and they said, you know can you walk and chew gum. Come up Monday night and we’ll get you going and here’s a pair of boots and a coat. Come up… And then what we’re most proud of is our son Jake who started full time Red Wing Fire Department. Fire paramedic. He just started his first shift, his first 24 hour shift here 2 weeks ago so we’re just extremely with that. He quit work and went to paramedic school. Graduated and now he’s full time with Red Wing so he’s going to carry on with our tradition but my biggest helper has been Derice because when the pager goes off, we know what we’re getting into. Her and every other spouse, significant other is at home wondering, worrying what’s happening. When we go there, yeah it’s a fire. We’re in control. We know what we’re doing. We don’t take chances. We drive careful, the whole bit but they’re lying in bed. Awake. Waiting for the front door to slam and everything is cool and, but they put up with a lot. An awful lot so, and when the pager goes off at birthdays, holidays, Christmas you know, we’re up and out the door and they’ve got to kind of deal with that so. Lot of stories. Lot of memories. We had a bad, nasty call last Monday down at the wye but first time in 25 years so hopefully it’s another 25 years before we see that one again too so. It was unfortunate but that’s life so. But we’ll keep trying to make…better so that doesn’t happen so, but I’ll still be around during the days. I’ve got a couple wonderful years yet. I love my job full time with the City Fire Marshal. I don’t want to give that up. I look forward to coming to work every day and that’s due to Todd and Laurie and the Mayor and staff. I mean it’s a great place to work. I love it so my hats off to these folks. Todd Gerhardt: No joke? Mark Littfin: We’ll tell those at the station. But I don’t have any good jokes. It’s just been a wonderful 20 years. Or 40 years, I’m sorry. Derice Littfin: You’re still wearing your 25 year jacket. Mark Littfin: I’ve still got a jacket that says 25 year member and people say geez, you’ve been on a long time and I said well add 15 to that. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 3 Todd Gerhardt: Well I’m sure the volunteers all here are going to miss Mark and so if you miss him really bad you come over to City Hall and you can see him because he’s not leaving us here. We still need him and he does a great job for us and I’m glad he’s still here and he usually has a joke but I’m a little disappointed that he doesn’t have a joke today but I’m sure he’ll have one later on over at the department so, Mark on behalf of all the City staff, thank you. We really appreciate your service and 40 years. Mark Littfin: My pleasure. Todd Gerhardt: Has gone by fast. Mark Littfin: It’s my pleasure so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, as we continue with the next items on our meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: We’ll start with the consent agenda items. These items will be considered in a single motion and that motion will be to adopt staff’s recommendation on each item respectively. These items are listed in the agenda under Section E, items 1 through 13. At this point I would ask if there’s any member of the council or others present that would like separate discussion on any of the items. Sir. Mark Anderson: Honorable Mayor, we’d like further discussion on item number 6. Lyman Boulevard Wetland Alteration Permit. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mark Anderson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t we go ahead and bring that up under I guess new business would be the place to bring it up. So we’ll bring that up under, as the 1.5 under new business. Between items 1 and 2 if that’s okay. Without objection. Any other items for separate discussion? If not is there a motion to approve items E(1) through (13) excluding item (6). Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Laufenburger seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1.Approval of City Council Minutes dated March 10, 2014 2.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 4, 2014 3.Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 25, 2014 and Work Session Minutes dated March 11, 2014 4.Resolution #2014-17: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project: Call Assessment Hearing 5.Resolution #2014-18: 2014 Vehicles & Equipment: Approve Annual Purchases 7.Resolution #2014-19: Approve Resolution for Advancing State Aid Funds for Lyman Boulevard Improvements Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 4 8.Approval of Liquor License Renewals 9.Approval of Collaborative Agreement with Carver County for ESRI (GIS) Software 10.Deleted 11.Resolution #2014-20: 2014 Sealcoat Project: Approve Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract 12.Powers Pointe: Approve Access Easement Agreement 13.Approval of Arbor Day Poster Contest Winners. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Mayor Furlong: Good evening Lieutenant. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Mr. Mayor, council, good evening. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Boy, looking at Mark Littfin after 40 years and I take a look at myself after 25 and all these gray hairs, how does he not get gray hairs? I don’t understand it. I’ve got to ask him how he does that. I’d like to introduce these folks standing next to me. This is Nick Warren and Jackie Warren and I have the honor of recognizing these two folks for providing assistance to the sheriff’s office for the apprehension of an intoxicated driver. On March 15, 2014 Nick and Jackie noticed a vehicle driving in front of them erratically. They witnessed the vehicle drive onto the shoulder. Over the center line. It would stop. Slow down. Speed up. Nick called 911 to report the incident and then Jackie took out her phone and started videotaping the driving behavior. They were able to follow the vehicle into Shakopee, back into Chanhassen onto County Road 61 where an Eden Prairie officer got there and made sure everything was okay. Our deputies responded. They gave a PBT and arrested the driver for DWI. The driver’s blood alcohol content was .30 and the legal intoxication is .08 so very intoxicated. Because Jackie took the time to film this incident we were able to take that. Transfer it onto a CD. We’ll be able to use it in court as evidence so without these folks willing to get involved this could have easily ended in a tragedy so it’s really my pleasure on behalf of the sheriff’s office and the City, it’s my pleasure to award the Citizen Coins to Jackie and to Nick for helping remove an intoxicated driver off the streets. Thank you very much. Alright, let’s go to the next slide here. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Yes, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Yeah, without the eyes and ears of the folks you know we can’t do it all so it was a great thing they did. Mayor Furlong: Did you have any hesitation? Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 5 Nick Warren: No. Mayor Furlong: No? Nick Warren: No. We saw the car driving towards us and I knew at that moment I needed to turn around and follow him. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you very much for doing that. We appreciate it and on behalf of the person they didn’t hit or the tree that they didn’t run into themselves, extend their appreciation as well. Thank you. Lt. Jeff Enevold: You guys don’t have to stick around if you don’t want to. Nick Warren: Thank you again. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Councilman Laufenburger: Is that commentary on the council meeting Lieutenant or what? Lt. Jeff Enevold: Well I think they’ve had enough excitement for one night. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Last month I received a call from the sheriff who had received a call from a concerned citizen who had heard from other citizens that they got the impression that the deputies in Chanhassen were maybe a little heavy handed in writing too many citations so we set up a meeting with this individual over a cup of coffee and we listened to the concerns and before I met with him I did some research into statistics and I’ll share that with you on the next slide but if you remember this is one of our goals for the year and I shared this with the person as well. We want to identify and address traffic issues and concerns within the city and then look for creative solutions to solve those issues with an emphasis on prevention and education, and I stress those two. So the next slide here I’ll kind of share with you what I did with him in case you’re hearing concerns like this or there are other citizens who have concerns like this. This is a 6 year comparison and as you can see over the 6 year period, you look at the left side are the number of traffic stops and the right are the number of citations and over the 6 year period it amounts to an average of 43% of traffic stops result in a citation being issued so I think we’re meeting our goals and I think it’s a great balance of education and enforcement and that individual was pleased to see this and kind of surprised to see this so we’re meeting our goals. Any questions on that? Okay. Unfortunately the Citizens Academy that we were going to run this spring, I only received 6 applications so we had to postpone it and we’re going to re-advertise in the fall and I’ve talked with each of those individuals and they’re willing to keep their applications on file for the fall so we’ll do some additional recruiting for our fall Citizens Academy. Public safety seminar we held on Tuesday, March 18th from 5:30 to 9:30 p.m. Beth Hoiseth and I hosted this event out at the Scale facility. We kind of wanted to change things up a little bit so we took them out there to use the shooting simulator and the driving simulator and there were 19 folks that came out there and here’s just some action shots. You can see Sergeant George Pufahl is teaching half the class there about kind of use of force. Deadly force and how the simulator works. You can see one of the citizens of Chanhassen there making some decisions and it looks like he’s ready to shoot there. Here’s the driving simulator and you can see this particular call for service, you can see the smoke in the distance there. This was a call, a response to a car fire and they have to drive through intersections and be cautious and take turns and I tell you, these folks had a great time and I probably even had a better time. It’s just fun to see folks do this and it was a great time had by everyone so that’s my presentation for you Mr. Mayor and council. Any questions for me? Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 6 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Lieutenant? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Lieutenant Enevold. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Yes sir. Councilman Laufenburger: I’m catching a little bit off guard on this but I’ve observed, the subject is regarding E cigarettes and what I’m, my question is, I saw something that was quite alarming that there seems to be a lot of mis-education or lack of education regarding E cigarettes and I’m wondering if you’re observing anything in the nature of either poisoning associated with the vapor that’s used with these cigarettes. Are you seeing an escalation of abuse by minors? Do you have any observations or is the County seeing anything like this right now? Lt. Jeff Enevold: I haven’t heard of or seen any issues related to that. It’s my understanding that the vapors coming out of there are only water vapors. But I know there’s some of these folks are using, putting different substances in there to try and hide you know that they’re smoking nicotine in there but I haven’t, I mean the deputies haven’t come across anything. I haven’t seen anything in the blotter so to my knowledge there’s no issues with that. Councilman Laufenburger: Then my only request Lieutenant would be that, just kind of keep an eye on this and if you, if you get a chance to see any statistics in the county or in the metro area where this is something that perhaps we need to be aware of, or at least in tune with and if there’s some education that might be appropriate. I know Bob Zydowsky, the School Resource Officer, I know he’s in touch, or he observes the students over there. I’d just ask that you just kind of raise your antenna on this a little bit if you wouldn’t mind. Lt. Jeff Enevold: I will absolutely do that. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you very much Lieutenant. That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? Lieutenant I have one regarding the monthly report. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: With regard to activity and that is regarding Part I crimes in the month of February. The only Part I crimes were theft but unfortunately there were 14 of them. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Right. Mayor Furlong: And I guess I’m curious if you have any idea what was driving that? Year to date Part I crimes are the same as they were a year ago so it’s not driving them up but we’re running much higher year to date on thefts. Is there a trend there? Is there some, anything that you can observe or share with us? Lt. Jeff Enevold: You know I took a look at that Mr. Mayor and I printed out all the thefts from the beginning of the year and what I see is, we have thefts from vehicles accounted for 7 of those and since the first of the year we’ve had about 5 thefts from vehicles at the dog park out at Minnewashta Park and we’re working with Marty Walsh and the parks to put additional signage and there’s talk about putting some cameras out there to try to deter or capture some of that stuff. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 7 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lt. Jeff Enevold: There was 8 of those were gas drive off thefts. 6 were shoplifters and then there was some miscellaneous stuff in there. There was some stuff stolen from the Rec Center. There was a theft from purse at work and then a couple cab fares were not paid so I don’t see anything that’s out of the ordinary there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And again total Part I crimes year to date is the same as last year it’s just sometimes there are different ones that are created so. Lt. Jeff Enevold: Sure. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Lt. Jeff Enevold: You’re welcome. Mayor Furlong: Appreciate that. Also this evening with the fire department is Assistant Chief Cori Wallis. Good evening Assistant Chief Wallis. Assistant Chief Cori Wallis: Mr. Mayor, council, good evening. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Assistant Chief Cori Wallis: After our presentation with Mark, I am one of those that was not born in 1973 so I can put myself in that category. I don’t have much to report tonight. Year to date as of the end of February when this report was written we were at 124 calls. As of today we’re at 164. We are at least one-third up on calls for the year so far. We are currently working on 3 fire investigations that we’ve had. One was on February 2nd. A piece of equipment in a home that was actually recalled several years ago started on fire. The homeowner put that fire out. We assisted them with smoke removal and a little bit of overhaul. We had a second call last week, Monday which is our first fatal fire that we’ve had in the first 25 years. The State Fire Marshal’s office is leading the investigation on that with Carver County and Fire Marshal Mark Littfin. We don’t have any results on that yet but as soon as we get them we will get them to you. And we also had a third fire last I believe it was Friday morning. We had another fire. Some chemicals had mixed. Started on fire. Started a load of dirty laundry on fire and luckily the homeowner was an early riser and took care of that. We’re going into spring which means that we are starting our compliance issue. Hose testing. Ladder testing. Equipment testing. Fire truck testing so as soon as the weather starts to cooperate we will start getting those things done and then making repairs as needed to the fleet. That’s all I have unless you guys have questions for me tonight. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the fire department under their report this evening? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And this is probably to the fire department and staff both regarding the, I don’t know what you call it. The property where the fatal fire occurred. Assistant Chief Cori Wallis: Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: What is the story with that parcel? Is it a rental units? Is it inspected regularly? It seems it doesn’t necessarily fit in I don’t think with a lot of the surrounding development that we have in town. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 8 Kate Aanenson: I can address that. Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: Thank you council members. This property is a legal non-conforming use so I did speak to the owner after the fire. They have a right to rebuild where the fire was because it is legal non- conforming so they can build it back to the way it was. MnDOT is acquiring part of that property with the roundabout so we talked about that so there will be a building being removed but this is part of the upgrade that we talked about with the study that we’re doing down there. The corridor study. The vision that we have for that area to upgrade. The underlying property owners, well some of the other property owners along there anticipate being able to get higher and better uses down there but that does have legal non-conforming rights so what we do is, we do inspect it to make sure that they haven’t increased in the number of units or buildings. They did put a new septic system in a number of years ago when they had a failing system so we do check on that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Another question if that’s okay. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Councilwoman Tjornhom: When you drive by there, there’s kind of like an RV with a tent or something wrapped around it. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Don’t we have some sort of ordinance about that? Kate Aanenson: Actually the non-conformity also includes some of the RV campers so there’s a number of buildings that they can have and a number of RV’s that can be permitted there so. And we have followed up on times when there’s added rooms or places put on, then we do follow up and inspect them and ask, or send letters to follow up. Yeah. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. We have inspected the units. They did have working smoke detectors in them. This is outside of our service area for municipal sewer and water so it does have an operational septic system as Kate had mentioned. It is on an individual well. However the units are not sprinkled. They’re not required to be sprinkled and not to say that you couldn’t have them sprinkled in a rural area but they would have to have their own individual well for that to occur and some type of pressure system to handle that. My guess the cost benefit of that for the units for the property owner to install those doesn’t make sense so right now they are in compliance with all our ordinances. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions regarding the fire department monthly report? Assistant Chief thank you. Assistant Chief Cori Wallis: Thank you. Have a good night. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We’ll move now to the next items on our agenda. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 9 BUSINESS IMPACT GROUP: REQUEST FOR REZONING FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 39,240 SQ. FT. OFFICE/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); LOCATED ON PART OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, 2410 GALPIN BOULEVARD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item did appear before the Planning Commission at their March 24th meeting. They did recommend approval. There was a concern from the property owner to the, adjacent to it regarding buffering and I’ll go through that in a little bit more detail when we get to that slide. So there’s two actions for you tonight. One is rezoning for a minor amendment to the Chan West Business Park and the other is a site plan review. The rezoning itself is less than 5% so we consider it a minor amendment. In your staff report there’s a compliance table that shows all the buildings so every project that comes in we measure that so this is a 12,000 square foot addition but it’s still within the threshold of the overall project area. It’s also what we would consider you know the traffic increase is pretty nominal compared to what, what could have been. Another building with a little bit larger footprint so we felt the minor amendment made sense. So then the second action would be the review of the site plan for the 39,240 square feet for BIG. The project is located on Galpin Boulevard so you have Lyman Boulevard here and then Galpin Boulevard so it’s this property in front here. Just anecdotally there is one more site that you have given site plan approval so that could just come forward with a building permit and that’s this area right in here. The subject we’re talking about is the highlighted in blue. Just a little over 2 acres. So again the square footage breakdown and the total office, 30%. Light industrial 70% and then 12,000 square foot increase. The original threshold of this was approximately 450,000 square feet so they are still with under that in the PUD but when we do a PUD we establish kind of with that PUD what we believe were the anticipated uses. So that would be the minor amendment. Again we are recommending, as did the Planning Commission recommended approval on that. So the site plan itself, the orientation. The front of it would be towards the Galpin Boulevard and then loading would be on the western side of the building. Again meets all the requirements for parking. This is the perspective. I do have the building materials here if you’re interested in seeing the specific details but it’s a highly articulated building and, with the stone veneer, arched copper, is the stucco on the remaining portion of the building. The majority portion of the building. Again a very nice looking building as all the other buildings within that development. Elevations on all, articulation on all four sides. Grading. And then the landscaping plan. So this is where the issue came up with the property owner to the north here just making sure there was enough buffer and also the view then that you would see of the loading docks so in the staff report, the gentleman who has a business to the north then came and met with city staff to review kind of what his concerns were and had a meeting with the City Forester. Came back with some specific recommendations and those are identified in condition number 29 so they have been added to your staff report so we’ve gone over that condition with both parties. The neighboring party and the applicant itself to make sure that that makes sense for what we’re trying to do there. I think the concern with the, with BIG is to make sure that, because there’s a parking lot there, that something would be viable if we tried to put some additional elements in there so we’ve got shrubs and some trees within there so both parties are happy with that condition. So with that we are recommending approval of the minor amendment and the site plan and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Ms. Aanenson, what’s on the north property line, what’s the setback there? Kate Aanenson: How close the building is? Mayor Furlong: Right. Property line. What space are we fitting the landscaping in? Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 10 Kate Aanenson: I have to go back to the first slide, I’m sorry. Yeah, it’s to get the parking lot in front so it’s the parking. But they have windows on this side too so you’ve got the parking lot between. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: So it’s probably about 60. Mayor Furlong: What about from the property line? Setback from the property line. Kate Aanenson: Oh it’s like 10 feet. Mayor Furlong: Northern property line. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So within that 10 feet that’s where they’re going to be planting. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And you said it was direction from, reading the Minutes the Planning Commission gave direction based upon the comments made at the public hearing and the result of the subsequent meetings was condition number 29. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And you met with both the applicant and with the property owner to the north? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, because I think the concern was that they want to make sure that whatever we recommended there was viable to grow and so, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? For staff at this point. Is the applicant here? Yes? No? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: No? Kate Aanenson: No, I think they’re as long as we put the condition I think they were amenable to us moving forward with that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, that’s fine. With that a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting. The only change of the specifics was condition 29 here. I don’t know if there’s anybody here that would like to provide comment with regard to that change but we’d certainly entertain that if there is. Sir. If you’d like to come up to the podium please. Peter Larson: Mr. Mayor, council. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 11 Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Peter Larson: I’m Peter from Waytek. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Peter Larson: And I’d like to thank you guys for considering all the changes and everything. The only thing that we’re concerned about with the vegetation along that north side of where the loading dock would be is that may die and then if it needs to get replaced and what not and we just, you know Bob our president was talking about perhaps having a wall there. I don’t know if that’s feasible or not with space but just something to think about because you know with the snowplowing and all that, there’s a good chance that snow will hit that and could damage the trees. Kate Aanenson: I think we did evaluate that. Even with a wall when you’re pushing snow up against it sometimes either they also can have issues but I think we’ve had pretty good success with property owners managing their buildings when those issues arise. Peter Larson: Okay. Okay. Kate Aanenson: And if the trees do die then they may take the perspective of maybe a wall would be better. Peter Larson: Okay, great. Kate Aanenson: We get a little bit more height with some of the trees I think was the issue too. Peter Larson: Okay, yeah. Okay. Kate Aanenson: So I think we tried to identified, our forester did a species that would be probably more tolerant for that and be a little bit better but if there’s a problem you can certainly contact us in the future. Peter Larson: Okay. Okay. Alright, thank you. Have a good night. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Appreciate that. With that we’ll bring it to council for comments and discussion and a motion. Any thoughts or comments? If I’m not mistaken BIG is located right across the street here so they’re expanding, or their business is expanding. They need more space and they’re choosing to stay here in town. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: That’s a wonderful statement for what they’re doing. Another 40,000 square foot building coming into town so, any other thoughts or comments? Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: I had no comments. I was just going to go ahead and read the motion. Mayor Furlong: Please do. Councilman McDonald: Okay Mr. Mayor, council. The Chanhassen City Council approves the minor amendment in the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Unit Development to increase the maximum building square footage within the development and the site plan review to construct a 39,240 square foot Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 12 office/warehouse building subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate, I just have a question for you. You made reference to a building site just to the west of this that’s included in the original PUD, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And so did I read you, did I hear you correctly saying that if anybody chooses to build on that area all they have to come forward is a building permit? They must comply with certain maximum square footage in the PUD wouldn’t they? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That one’s already been calculated in there. They’ve gone through site plan review. The builder chose not to go forward at that time. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So it already has gone through the entitlement process so it’s factored in there but you’re right. You are correct in saying anything that would change it would have to come back before you but if it stays in that same format with just some minor change it would just get a building permit. Councilman Laufenburger: Perfect. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none without objection we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves the minor amendment to the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) to increase the maximum building square footage within the development; and the Site Plan Review to construct a 39,240 square foot office/warehouse building subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City. 2.The developer shall pay the park fee of $23,121.00 with the building permit. 3.The developer shall install a pedestrian access to the Galpin Boulevard trail. 4.The developer shall provide benches and/or picnic tables for employees. 5.The developer shall provide detail of the bioretention areas is provided showing: a.Any soil amendments and corrections, Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 13 b.Pre-treatment practices to be employed and these shall be shown on the plan view and in the detail sheet (It is highly recommended that something similar to the Rain Guardian developed by Anoka Conservation District be used.), and c.Steps that will be taken to prevent compaction and siltation of the area resulting from construction activities on the site. 6.Hydrologic calculations demonstrating that the features will draw down in 48 hours or less are provided. 7.Hydrologic and water quality calculations demonstrating the features will treat 1-inch water quality volume from impervious areas is provided. 8.An exhibit showing pre- and post-development drainage is provided. 9.Calculations shall be provided demonstrating that no increase in runoff rates will result at any point leaving the site after build out. 10.The SWPPP shall be modified such that it is a standalone document which includes all elements required by the permit. At a minimum this shall include the following elements: a.A narrative of construction activity per Part IIIA 1. b.A listing of the chain of responsibility for oversight of SWPPP implementation per Part IIIA 2. c.Training documentation for those involved in the design and implementation of the SWPPP per Part IIIF. d.Designs and calculations for meeting Stormwater Discharge Requirements although it is understood that this project was originally permitted under different rules so design requirements will be to that approval as administered by Carver County WMO. e.Estimated preliminary quantities tabulation for al erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs per Part IIIA 5. f.Impervious coverage pre-development and post-development per Part IIIA 5. g.Site map showing soil types per Part IIIA 5. h.A map of surface waters and wetlands within one-mile of site which will receive stormwater. The SWPPP must identify if these are special or impaired waters. Lake Hazeltine receives runoff from the site and is listed as a 303D impaired water. i.The SWPPP must indicate who is responsible for the maintenance of the permanent stormwater management practices on the site and a maintenance plan to assure performance of the practice as listed in Part IIIA 5 k. j.The plans must show all elements required under part IV.C of the permit. 11.The existing Storm Catch Basin identified as ST CB on sheet C5.01A shall either be abandoned and have the conveyance eliminated or shall have inlet protection provided prior to disturbance within the area tributary to the CB. This shall be shown on the plan sheet and included within the Sequence of Construction. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 14 12.The bioretention area must be designed and constructed following the guidelines set forth in the on-line Minnesota Stormwater Manual. 13.Because the site connects to city infrastructure, the City and/or their representatives shall be represented at the pre-construction meeting and shall approve the installation of BMPs. The Sequence of Construction shall be changed to reflect this. 14.Bioretention areas cannot be brought on-line until all tributary areas are stabilized. The Sequence of Construction shall reflect this. 15.Inlet protection shall be called out at all curb cut areas and the practice shall be included in the details. The Sequence of Construction shall reflect this need. 16.The swale areas must be stabilized with ditch checks, erosion control blanket or other approved best management practice. 17.Silt fence or other acceptable perimeter control practices shall be extended to protect all down gradient areas including the entire frontage along Galpin Court and shall be shown on both C5.01A and C5.02A. 18.The Sequence of Construction found on Sheet C5.02 A shall have “if required by contract” removed. 19.On sheet C5.03A, the city does not allow for the use of wooden posts for silt fence. The silt fence detail must be modified to reflect this. 20.On sheet C5.03A, change Maintenance Note 7 to include compaction and sediment protection from all construction related activities. 21.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 Carver County Watershed Management Organization. 22.The developer must submit a soils report to the City. 23.The engineer shall revise the proposed grading plan to show the existing and proposed elevation at the corners of the proposed building. 24.The plan shall be revised to show locations of proposed stockpile areas. 25.The plan shall be revised to show the top and bottom wall elevations at points along the wall. 26.The engineer shall show the truck turning movements in the loading area on the plan. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 15 27.The plan must follow all applicable State and Federal guidelines, including ADA standards for the sidewalk reconstruction. 28.Sanitary sewer and water main to be installed for this project shall be privately owned and maintained. 29.The applicant shall work with staff to develop a revised landscaping plan, which shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Additional landscaping shall be installed along the north property line. Suitable species for the area next to the building include arborvitae, such as Techny, and columnar trees such as Apollo or Sugar Cone maple. To block views of the truck loading docks, the applicant shall install a hedge along the property line north of the loading docks. The shrub materials selected should provide year round coverage to a mature height of at least 5’ – 6’. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Thank you. Let’s move now to item number E(6) which was request to be removed from our consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: E(6). LYMAN BOULEVARD WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPOSED ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OF THE SEGMENT OF CSAH 18 BETWEEN CSAH 15 (AUDUBON ROAD) AND CSAH 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD), APPLICANT: CARVER COUNTY. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t we start, sir if I can invite you back up here. If you could state your question and reason for, desire for discussion then we can perhaps go to a staff report. Mark Anderson: Sure. Mr. Mayor and council, my name is Mark Anderson with MFRA and I’m representing PPB Holdings. Landowner on the south side of Lyman Boulevard, adjacent to the proposed Lyman Boulevard improvements of which the mitigation plan and permit that you’re considering tonight is a part of. The concern with the proposed mitigation plan that. Mayor Furlong: Lay that right over the top of, there you go. Ms. Aanenson, could you pull those things out of his way if they’re in his way? Thank you. Thank you. Mark Anderson: So on the screen I’ve got a copy of the county highway plans and what’s shown here is PPB Holding property on the south side of Lyman Boulevard and part of the application that you’re considering tonight is impacts that the roadway is having on existing wetlands in this area and we’ve communicated with the County on a couple of occasions. My client and myself about our concern for a proposed 24 inch culvert crossing from north to south on Lyman Boulevard that then drains onto PPB Holding property and consequently flows across private property without an easement in the direction of the orange arrow. This is concerning for our client because one, the pipe size is being increased from an 18 inch to a 24 inch. As well the pipe is being extended into PPB property. They do have a small easement for the pipe itself but not for the conveyance of water in the direction of the orange arrow. Along with that the toe of slope, this is a low area on my client’s property and so the toe of slope is being extended into the property approximately 40 feet without any additional permanent easement so those are all things that we’re working through with the County to address so that they don’t negatively impact my client’s property. How it relates to the discussion tonight, since those items haven’t quite yet been Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 16 formally addressed is that in conversations again with the County public works department, there will likely be additional wetland impacts to convey this water properly to the west and so the report that you’re considering and the permit application that you’re considering tonight does not fully address these items and will likely be amended again so that our client’s property is not negatively impacted. So rather than approve it tonight we’d like to request that it be tabled, hopefully not longer than the next council meeting so that we can fully address these items. Fully address the wetland impacts that occur within the temporary easement that’s noted here and then amend the report and approve accurately addressing the drainage concerns. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. Oehme, Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. Jeffery, good evening. Welcome to the seat. Perhaps you could address Mr. Anderson’s comments. Terry Jeffery: I can speak to the sequencing and the wetland replacement as to the design issue in the procurement of easement for that drainage that’s, that falls to the design of the plan. What is before you is a wetland alteration permit, Wetland Conservation Act replacement plan based upon the design that was provided. The design that was provided meets the Wetland Conservation Act in that it minimizes to the greatest extent practicable the impacts necessary to build the project. To the extent that there may be additional impacts or may not be additional impacts depending on if any design changes occur would be outside of the germane of what has been requested by the County in terms of the wetland replacement plan so under Chapter 8420 they are to look for ways to avoid impacts. If that is not possible, look for ways to minimize impacts and then those impacts which are unavoidable to either try and rectify on site over time or to mitigate for somewhere else. It is staff’s and the Technical Evaluation Panel’s opinion that this application meets all of those requirements and has in good faith achieved the goals of the Wetland Conservation Act. That does not preclude at a future time, if changes to the plan are deemed necessary that that would then be handled under a separate application but right now that is a design question is outside of the scope of what is being presented with this application. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the issues raised by Mr. Anderson, am I understanding it correctly that those, that there may be changes that occur in the future depending on the results of additional work on, if there are changes to the design there may be changes or an amendment to the Wetland Alteration Permit? May or may not. Terry Jeffery: May or may not. If the design, if the engineers decide for whatever reason that additional changes need to be made and that results in impacts then yes, we would address that at that time but to speculate on what may or may not happen without a plan is beyond the scope of this wetland application. Mayor Furlong: And does the plan include the 24 inch culvert? Terry Jeffery: Yes it does. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so Mr. Aanenson help us understand if, if the application meets the plan design that was approved, and that includes the 24 inch culvert, do you disagree with the permit application? Mark Anderson: Only with regard to the water that’s conveyed through the 24 inch culvert so Mr. Jeffery is certainly accurate that the county plan does include the 24 inch culvert. What it doesn’t address is that it’s discharging public waters from the north side of Lyman Boulevard to private land without any easement to convey it downstream. As well it doesn’t present a positive ditch slope to convey it to the west so that it doesn’t negatively impact the PPB Holding property so the pipe is part of the plan but the conveyance of the public water has not been addressed. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 17 Mayor Furlong: And Mr. Jeffery or Mr. Oehme, I mean with regard to that, is that part of the application you have to consider that? Terry Jeffery: It is not part of the wetland. It is not part of the application to consider what in fact are design issues. So we don’t, as the LGU I don’t look at it and say well I disagree with your design Carver County. You should do this instead and therefore there should be more, more impacts. I look at what was presented to me. Does it meet those requirements? I think Mr. Oehme could speak better to the actual design of the culvert underneath though and the process that was gone through to get to that point. Mayor Furlong: And does the Wetland Alteration Permit that’s before us this evening, does that address questions of easements or slope and runoff? Terry Jeffery: It does not. Mayor Furlong: Okay, it’s strictly relating to what? To. Terry Jeffery: Are the wetland impacts that are proposed necessary to complete the project as designed, and the intended purpose of that project, and any avoidable, unavoidable impacts, are they being replaced in kind? Mayor Furlong: And with regard to those issues, it’s your opinion that this application does meet those objectives and those requirements? Terry Jeffery: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, anything else? Mark Anderson: I think the only point left in the discussion is whether or not it fully addresses all of the impacts. We realize that there will be equipment running to develop the toe of slope. They’ll be running outside of the proposed impact area. I believe they would also impact the wetland areas beyond what’s proposed so I think there’s some disagreement in that matter as to how much construction activity will impact what’s being permitted or might the impacts extend beyond. We believe they will extend beyond. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Jeffery. Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor, through the process one of the, one of the requirements of the contractor and the project proposer is an Affidavit of, it’s, I forget the name of the form that BWSR uses but in essence it’s saying that we are response, we understand that there are additional wetlands in this area. We are not to stockpile material in those areas. We are not to use those areas to stage this project. If there are temporary impacts that result as, because of construction. If it’s deemed for instance at a pre-construction meeting that look, we won’t be able to construct this embankment without working, without staging from that wetland area, then at that time we could look at a temporary impact and allowing that temporary impact knowing that it’s going to be self mitigated on site. However, we’re looking at a plan. The plan shows that the grading limits will be to that point and that’s what, that’s what we go by. Is the proposed grading limits. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 18 Mark Anderson: Maybe if I could just one last question. If it’s determined that different design method is required to convey the water that might have additional impacts, can this application be amended versus submitting a new one? Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor, the Wetland Conservation Act does speak to that. I apologize I don’t have the exact figures. There is some percentage of which if the replacement or the impact doesn’t increase by X amount, then you can just issue an addendum to an existing application. So my short answer would be yes with conditions. There may be some, you know if we’re only looking at a thousand or a few thousand square feet then yes we can amend it. Mayor Furlong: Based upon some circumstances it can be. Terry Jeffery: Correct. Mayor Furlong: In others it would not be able to be, is that a fair assumption? Terry Jeffery: Correct. That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Terry Jeffery: So it. Mayor Furlong: Is the County aware Mr. Anderson of your concerns? You say you sent them a letter. Mark Anderson: Yes, and we’ve been communicating with them and as of last Friday they had indicated that they would talk to BWSR about the additional impacts. BWSR being the Board of Water and Soil Resources. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And with regard to the construction concerns and the limits of construction, are they at all concerned about going outside of the limits that are included in the plan? Mark Anderson: They recognize that the conveyance of this water hasn’t been fully addressed yet and we need to resolve it. Whether that means a different construction method or pipe or something like that, that yet is to be determined and that’s what we were hoping we could do is work with them to determine that and then just have this application finalized in addressing all potential impacts instead of you know coming back and amending it later or applying for a new one. It’s just more process and paper and time when obviously we’ve got a construction project that wants to get moving forward as the weather permits. Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor if I may speak quickly to that. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Jeffery. Terry Jeffery: If in fact what is determined is that they want to run a pipe conveyance down, then we would need to look at treatment for that because we can’t have a new pipe discharge. That being said, if what it is, is that they need to re-grade that area to insure that there is proper conveyance, that there is positive drainage towards Bluff Creek, the Wetland Conservation Act allows for excavation within a Type 1, 2, and 6. 1, 2, 3 and 6 wetland which this would fall under. So it would not be considered an impact that would require mitigation if it was simply to grade down a few inches to a foot to correct the drainage pattern. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 19 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And so based upon the information and the issue before the council this evening, Mr. Jeffery is there anything that you’ve heard tonight or earlier tonight that would suggest that we do not have enough information or that within our purview to go forward? Terry Jeffery: No Mr. Mayor I do not. I think we have enough to go forward with this application and replacement plan as submitted. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Anderson. Mark Anderson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom, did you have a question? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don’t know if I do or not. Well it’s, this may be a silly question. Something struck me that part of, part of your concern was the fact that there was public water that was being directed on private or someone else’s land without an easement. Mark Anderson: That is correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that what I’m hearing correctly? Mark Anderson: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don’t know can staff kind of explain that to me? If that means water’s water. Is that not correct or can someone just clarify that for me as a point of interest for myself I guess. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme. Paul Oehme: Sure. Mayor, City Council members. That’s correct. The County did take an easement over the pipe itself but did not take a drainage utility easement or right-of-way to convey water through the proposed drainage way. It’s my understanding that some of the water that the culvert discharged prior to the proposed, or the existing conveyance system, some of that water did go on private property as well too so I think the County’s aware of that issue. I think they’re talking about potentially needing additional easements in this area to convey that water so I think that’s still in negotiations with the property owner. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a representative from the County here? Is there anything you’d like to add at this point? Bill Weckman: Sure. Mr. Mayor and council, Bill Weckman with Carver County Public Works. Yeah so we’ve been working on this project and we did have a meeting with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Dorsey, the property owner back in February where these concerns came out and I think it’s included in your packet as far as background information. Letter that Mr. Anderson had sent the County and our response to that letter. Yes there are some issues out there. If you look at the drawing there, we do have temporary easement to do the project. When this concern came out about the water going out and such, yes there was a recognition there may be a need to increase or maybe upgrade that to a permanent easement if in fact it is a drainage area and a permanent easement is needed as one solution to this. I know the property owner has a desire to have turn lanes and such there. I mean we have talked with the City as far as that possibility and the City is, I mean yes that’s a possibility but there’s a process to go through as far as review of the wetlands. Potential wetlands and impacts and such. Unfortunately this project is under contract to be built. A starting date is supposed to be April 15th. Everything is in line to get this project Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 20 going so there’s a need for this permit so we can continue on with the project. We’ll certainly try to work with the property owner in resolution of this. These concerns but we also have to work with the City as a partner in this project and the City’s process to make this happen so. So I guess my request would be approval of this permit which addresses the project which we are trying to complete and yeah, we will continue to work with the property owner to resolve these other issues. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Weckman? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Okay I’m a little confused by all this because you’ve brought up a couple of points. How can you go forward with a design where you’ve got water going and you don’t know where it’s going to go? You’re also, you’re going to impact private property and you’re telling me that yeah, we could mitigate that. We can do something else. Maybe we’ll go and get an easement at that point. Isn’t that like kind of closing the barn door after the cows have already left? A thorough design would have already accounted for all of this. What’s happened here is that we have a landowner that’s been rather slow as far as what he wants to do with the property so there’s issues of egress and those kind of things with the property and he’s slow doing it. By you putting the water there, now you’re driving where any turn lanes or egress is going to go without getting the proper easements to do that. I don’t understand how everybody can say the design is good to go when you admit you don’t know where this water’s going to go. It’s going to flow over private land. It will totally change the characteristics of this land at that point and no one has really accounted for any of that. That says your project’s not ready to go in my mind. Tell me where I’m wrong because something’s missing here. You can’t do part of a design and say you’re going to figure out the rest of it later and yet at the same time you’re going to impact private property. Explain it. Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members, Councilman McDonald. The current drainage pattern really isn’t changing from the existing conditions to the design conditions. There is an existing culvert there currently. That culvert’s not moving. The drainage flow is remaining the same from the south side of Lyman Boulevard, discharging onto the south side of Lyman then down to Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek so the pattern’s still the same. The location of where the drainage flows from the end of the culvert to the creek, that’s where it’s changed a little bit so in my judgment you know the drainage design more or less stays the same. It’s just that the water’s channelized in a different location than it currently is. And to Terry Jeffery’s point, you know that’s something that goes on with every project with looking at wetland impacts and how drainage patterns potentially will occur over time so those type of things can be looked at in the future but in terms of what’s before us tonight in terms of a, the wetland permit, I think from staff’s perspective that’s pretty much set. Councilman McDonald: But okay, you say there’s no change but yet you’re going from what, an 18 inch culvert to 24? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman McDonald: So the water flow is going to increase. That’s going to change the way the water moves. Paul Oehme: No, not necessarily. The drainage pattern, the drainage area is more or less staying the same. There is about 7 acres of drainage to the north side of Lyman that’s still going to flow through the culvert. Actually there potentially will be less drainage onto private property or to this area based upon because it’s going from a rural section roadway where the water can flow, sheet drain off the road to an urbanized section where there’s actually going to be storm sewer catching the water before it ends up on private property so potentially there’s going to be less water going in this direction. That existing culvert, that 18 inch culver that Mr. Anderson had talked about, that existing culvert is going to be replaced with Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 21 24 inch. That culvert was installed back in I think in the early 80’s replacing another culvert that was there prior. Drainage designs change over time so based upon a 1980 design versus what a 2014 design is. It’s a little bit different design than it was back then so. The pattern’s going to stay the same. The flow of water through that culvert is more or less going to stay the same. The only thing that really changes is the direction of the water. Where the water is going to be going after it leaves the culvert on the south side of Lyman. Councilman McDonald: Okay, if I could get Mr. Anderson back up here. I’ve got a question for you too. Okay you heard what the City and the County have said about all this, what is your proposing? What is the problem then with this culvert going through the way it is? It’s following an existing drainage patterns. What would you look at for a design change? Have you proposed anything? I mean what’s wrong with that design the way it currently is? Mark Anderson: Certainly. So you know one of the primary, one of them is they’re pushing the water 40 feet further into our client’s property so it used to be conveyed further to the north with a narrower roadway and a narrower slope that projected into our client’s property so now it’s all getting pushed further back south onto his property. The toe of slope is being extended and no easement so they’re more or less just taking this land away from our client. Conveying a bigger pipe. You know even if design standards have changed, I believe this pipe will convey more water than it used to in larger events and so maybe they’re designing it for a larger event. Well that will allow more water to come through and so what we’d like to see ultimately is no impact to our client’s property. No negative impact and that would happen by conveying the water downstream where they actually have a ditch. An adjacent property, you can look at the cross sections for the road design. They have a ditch to convey that water. They don’t have any ditch here. It’s just going to spill out onto the landowner’s property and poor, and drain at a very poor fashion to the west and likely flood it and expand, expand you know the wet areas so the water needs to at least get conveyed to the west without negatively impacting this. That could either be done by conveying it on the north side of the road or they can continue this pipe to the west where there is a ditch being proposed. Councilman McDonald: So are you saying in effect what you’re afraid of is that we’re going to end up with a Defacto drainage pond on your client’s property before it all drains down the ditch to Bluff Creek? Mark Anderson: That is correct because now the toe of slope for the new roadway is anywhere from a half a foot to a foot higher than the old roadway. Plus we’ve got a 24 inch. Plus it’s coming 40 feet into the property and that’s where we’re here tonight because we believe there will be further wetland impacts to address this properly once they have a plan that’s complete and doesn’t have a negative impact on PPB Holding’s property. Councilman McDonald: And when you say have a plan complete, who’s they? You or the County? Mark Anderson: The County. It’s their design project. We just need to see them revise it so that it doesn’t impact our client’s property. It’s their. Councilman McDonald: Well what the County says to us is that it’s fine the way it is and we ought to go ahead and approve it. They don’t seem to share your concerns. Why is that? Mark Anderson: Well I think they, Mr. Weckman recognized, I think you said they recognized there were some issues. They just haven’t addressed them yet. I think any one of us as property owners would object to water and a pipe being pushed 40 feet onto our property with no solution on how to handle that water. It’s not just a little bit of water. It’s a 24 inch pipe and so it’s a pretty substantial impact which you know based on our conversations, you know they’re working with us but really not seeing any action Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 22 and this is you know, this is one avenue that they need to address is the wetland permit tonight. The other is how do they resolve the drainage concern and if they just keep forging ahead and they say they’ve got a contractor underway. They want to start April 15th. Well when are they going to solve it or are they just going to build what they’ve got and push the landowner aside and say well, you know you need to go hire an attorney and deal with this and just put more burden on him or can we stop. Take a look at this. Resolve it and then approve what’s right for the project and what’s right for this permit application. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Question I have is you I think just stated that this is a County project. Have you been to the County yet and addressed your concerns and addressed the County Board about this? Mark Anderson: We did talk to the County Public Works Department. Mr. Bill Weckman and Lyndon Robjent. As well we sent them a letter and our client has communicated with them. The plan has not changed. So a lot of time and effort has been spent with no resolution yet to date. Councilman McDonald: And okay if I could, let me ask you a question about what he says if all the water drains the way it is, are we going to create kind of a retention pond there? All the water will go there and pool there until it drains down or does it go into an existing ditch and it drains there and there’s no impact on all that land? Either one, Mr. Oehme or. Terry Jeffery: Mayor, Councilman McDonald. Positive drainage is still to the west on this project. So the water would continue to drain westerly through that area. Councilman McDonald: I agree with that. The question is before it drains to the west is it going to pool because now we’re dumping all that water directly into that swale that’s in there and then it will reach a certain height and then at that point it will continue down or is there accommodation so that now we don’t take all of that land back in there to form a retainage pond? Terry Jeffery: I haven’t seen the model yet as to how high that area will bounce. I can’t speak exactly to that. However the drainage patterns not changing the volume, not changing, I don’t anticipate that it would behave hydrologically different from what we are seeing currently. Although it would be further south on the property that that channelization occurred. That the outflow occurs. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and if there were a problem, since we didn’t, that land’s not part of any easement, are we looking at an additional design at some point to bend the water around so that it now follows the path you want it to? Is that a possible future possibility? Terry Jeffery: Yes it is definitely possible that the ultimate design changes such that they design a deliberate conveyance from that area, whether it be over land flow or through a ditch or piped out or saying well let’s make this then be the stormwater treatment area for a larger, for the remaining property but yes, there is certainly a number of scenarios I could see under which they might possibly change that. Councilman McDonald: But then what you seem to be telling me is that we wouldn’t know that until we build it and we try it out for a while and we see what the natural course of things are. Is that what I, because you wouldn’t change the design within the next 6 months? Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 23 Terry Jeffery: That is correct. To an extent. We do have, I would assume SRF has modeling data that we could review to see what we are anticipating for a bounce in that area which would be very, a very good indicator of what we would expect to see for the hydraulics in that area. Mayor Furlong: Is that applicable to the wetland alteration permit that’s before us this evening? Is that part of that process? Terry Jeffery: Again no because it is not, we are not designing for the County. We are weighing in on what was presented to us to accomplish the project which is to build the road. If their discussion with a private property owner leads to design changes or procurement of additional easement to accommodate additional flow, that could be addressed at that time under a permit but what has been presented to us is, have they minimized the impacts to the greatest extent possible? Take another scenario. It is not uncommon to say okay, well you can’t minimize the slopes any more than 3 to 1 but what we could do is go 3 to 1 to some point and then put in a retaining wall on top of it thereby making the flow stay within the right-of-way. And minimizing impacts even further. I mean it’s a double edged sword. It could go, there are a number of ways that this could be addressed and I don’t, one of those might result in less impacts to the wetland. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Just add a couple of things here. I think we’re, it’s obvious you know you can not push water onto private property and I think the County and the property owner and his representatives are having discussions regarding that. And what Terry is saying, that should have nothing to do with the item before you. It’s more of a road design element that should have been handled as a part of the road design and what should have been a permanent easement versus a temporary construction easement and those discussions are going on. And if there isn’t some type of conclusion to those discussions, unfortunately the property owner does have legal rights to come back against probably the County and the City in this matter and, but I believe that the County and the applicant will come to some type of conclusion on this and probably expanding that permanent easement boundary. I can’t sit here and say it’s going to happen but they’re having discussions and, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the wetland alteration. Councilman McDonald: Yes but if I could, I mean it would seem then that that needs to be tied up before you start letting anyone get in there and do any kind of construction because what you’re telling me is that down the road all this could change. And what I mean by that is what Terry’s talking about. If okay you can’t push the water onto private land. Something’s got to be done at that point. Either an accommodation has to be reached or you’ve got to redesign the way that, you know that pipe’s coming out there and dumping water. As to where the water goes. Todd Gerhardt: But this application took into account the calculation of the amount of water coming and the impacts onto the existing wetlands and they’ve endorsed that the measures being used are appropriate. Councilman Laufenburger: Who’s they? Todd Gerhardt: The engineer, SRF. The consulting engineer on the project and how they designed it. BWSR has confirmed how they designed it worked. BWSR didn’t come in and say you can’t push water on private property. That wasn’t you know their job to tell them how to design the project. It was just the impacts onto the wetland is what BWSR was asked to review and how they’re going to mitigate and impact those wetlands. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 24 Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme. Paul Oehme: So Mayor, City Council members. The County is acquiring temporary easements for installation of the culvert and then grading in this area as well and that includes the area that we’re talking about for the wetland impacts. So we’re not, the County’s not planning on grading or going on private property on this project at all. There is a temporary easement out there during the construction process. We do have time when the, right now for negotiations that the County’s already started for acquiring those additional potentially drainage easements. Turning those temporary easements into permanent easements in the future so we’re not theoretically impacting private property right now because the County is acquiring those easements necessary to construct this project. Mark Anderson: So I think the concern is, you’re asked to approve a permit application tonight for a project that’s incomplete and because the project is incomplete in addressing this item, as well a permit application tonight is incomplete. It hasn’t been fully resolved and you know the owner has to bring me to this meeting tonight and work with the County and all these sorts of things when the County should be doing this right in the first place so I would force their hand. Get them to resolve this. Then once they have the full resolution that doesn’t negatively impact our client’s property, then come back with a full permit application and then you can approve it. Mayor Furlong: And Mr. Anderson thank you for your comments but if I understand correctly, and Mr. Jeffery, Mr. Oehme, the issues you’ve raised about the easements. The ditch slope. The construction process are not necessarily pertinent to the wetland permit. Is that correct? The permit that is before us this evening is addressing issues of. Mark Anderson: Of the road. Mayor Furlong: Effects to the, based upon the design of the effects to the wetlands. Mark Anderson: Yeah it addresses an incomplete design and a complete design will likely change this permit. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Jeffery, any final comment? Terry Jeffery: No, I think that’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Anderson. Mark Anderson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any comments from, comments? Thoughts by the council. Councilman Laufenburger: I do. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Mister, thank you Mr. Anderson for your comments and your description. I think these are simple questions but I need to ask them. Could you explain the term mitigation and it’s use here, and I’m quoting from the staff report. These impacts will be mitigated for by wetland credits. Can you explain that Mr. Jeffery please? Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 25 Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Laufenburger, yes. Under the Wetland Conservation Act, if an impact is deemed unavoidable in order to accomplish the goals. If you’ve looked at all other alternatives and. Councilman Laufenburger: And in this case to accomplish the goal is build a roadway. Terry Jeffery: To build a road to the safety design standards that have been put forward. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Terry Jeffery: The alternative to look at would be another alignment entirely. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Terry Jeffery: And clearly that’s not an option. If there are impacts that are deemed unavoidable then they must have their functions and values replaced. And to replace those you can either replace in kind on site, and that’s typically done with a larger block parcel. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Terry Jeffery: But when you have linear parcels you’re very limited in where that can occur so then you look to establish wetland banks. And the way that this is set up, the Board of Water and Soil Resources has two banks that they manage, or two bank programs that they manage. One is the road replacement program and that is for any improvement that is deemed germane to the safety improvements themselves. That are intrinsic in order to improve the level of service of that road and improve long term safety. They will replace from their program so the applicant does not need to replace. Whether it be the City, the County, the State or the Federal agencies. Any impacts that are not deemed germane to that safety, and that typically tends to be stormwater ponds, pedestrian trails, those types of pertinent items to the project can be replaced by purchasing credit from a private held bank. So I would own a bank. You would come to me and you would purchase those credits that would be applied to the mitigation for the impacts that you couldn’t avoid and all of this is done as long as the credits are established prior to the impacts being, taking place it has to happen at 2 units to 1 unit ratio. So for every acre of impact, 2 acres of mitigation must occur. Councilman Laufenburger: So this project, 2 acres of wetland will be impacted. Terry Jeffery: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: And that is, that is 2 acres of wetland on the south side of Lyman. Is that correct? Terry Jeffery: That is actually 2 actually 2 acres of wetland throughout the entire corridor of this phase of the project. Councilman Laufenburger: Do you know how much of this is on the south side of Lyman on PPB property? Terry Jeffery: I’m looking for it right now. So Wetland 1A will be impacted in it’s entirety. That is the pond that is closest to the, actually can you put that onto, just that slide right there will work. 1A is if you look at where Sunset Trail. Yep, that’s 1A and 1B are right there. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 26 Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Terry Jeffery: So those impacts combined. Councilman Laufenburger: Go past that. Go down on the left side of the. Terry Jeffery: So now we’re at Wetland 2. Impacts total to Wetland 2 are 1.42 acres. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, 1.42 acres then. I think that’s, if I’m not mistaken it’s that area where the culvert is okay? Terry Jeffery: Yep. Councilman Laufenburger: So 1.4. So that means the agency, the County who is building this road, they will have to buy 2.84 acres of wetland credits in order to offset the impact that they have on 1.42. Am I say that right? Terry Jeffery: That is correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. That answers that question. So in other words the credits means we’re giving permission to alter this wetland in exchange for 2.8 acres of not altering somewhere else. Terry Jeffery: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So some other property owner or some other wetland is not going to be impacted whereas 1.42 acres will be impacted. Okay. Let’s talk about this culvert. You said there’s an 18 inch culvert right now, is that correct Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Is that culvert fully functional right now? Paul Oehme: I have not inspected it but I believe it would be. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. I’ve seen this land on the north side and I’ve seen water accumulate there so that suggests to me that at, for various reasons it’s possible water’s not running through that culvert and in fact it goes over those driveways and continues in a westerly movement. Have you observed that Mr. Jeffery at all? How about you Mr. Weckman, have you observed that at all? Bill Weckman: No. Councilman Laufenburger: No. Terry Jeffery: I have not observed that although I do know that one property to the west had issues with their culvert and the conveyance through that but whether that is from this watershed I do not know. Councilman Laufenburger: Is there a culvert underneath those two driveways? Paul Oehme: Councilman Laufenburger there is a culvert at this location. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 27 Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Paul Oehme: That was replaced by the City, I don’t know 3-4 years ago maybe. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, okay, okay. But the culvert, if you can just with your arrow, the culvert we’re talking about here is going from there to there and right now it’s 18 inches and you’re making it, and the County’s going to make it 24. Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Why the increase in size? Paul Oehme: Again the County engineers did the analysis and the design for that culvert and they believe a 24 inch culvert is necessary for today’s standards. Councilman Laufenburger: Oh for today’s standards. Not necessarily because there’s going to be 33% more water going through. Paul Oehme: No. I mean again the watershed, the area that potentially would flow through this culvert is theoretically not going to change under this design. Councilman Laufenburger: And in fact your argument about the road directing the surface water of the road is going to go to storm sewer, right? Paul Oehme: Correct. The road is going from a 2 lane rural section roadway which is I don’t know 30 feet wide. Now it’s going to be significant wider. 4 lanes with a median inbetween so the surface area that used to drain to this culvert is going to go down some. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. That’s logical to me. That you build a road that directs the water from the roadway rather than it just going off the side, now it’s being directed. I can see that that would be less water. Let’s see. This is a wetland alteration permit. Why are we seeing this right now? I mean we’ve seen a lot of approvals on this project over the last 2 years. Why are seeing this wetland alteration permit right now? Mr. Jeffery. Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Laufenburger. There is a very long history with this parcel dating back to 2007. Councilman Laufenburger: Who is this parcel? The PPB parcel? Terry Jeffery: The PPB parcel, yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Terry Jeffery: There have been no fewer than 3 delineations done on this property. There was a completed application that was submitted. I don’t have the. Councilman Laufenburger: By the County? Terry Jeffery: By the County and at that time, due to questions about access onto the PPB Holding’s property it was asked to remove that application so it did not go forward. That was in, that was in March of 2013 this was originally going to come, yeah. There’s the history of this area here. Not to go through Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 28 it in great detail but each color grouping is a different phase. Whether it be the delineation. The green is the original when the entire corridor was delineated. 2012 they came back with a replacement plan application. March it was decided we should probably, March of 2013 we should probably pull this back. DNR decided, they went through the DNR culvert application on their own because they realized that this was kind of getting, let’s get this one moving forward so the culvert was approved in one month in October, August, September, October of ’13. SRF delineated the property separately on the Dorsey property. Huston Engineering then came in and did some more delineation. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. I think you’ve answered my question. Does Chanhassen have the authority to approve a wetland alteration permit? Before you answer that, who owns the wetlands in the State of Minnesota? Terry Jeffery: They are considered waters of the State. Councilman Laufenburger: Of the State. Terry Jeffery: Not like a public water inventory like a lake would be. Under the Clean Water Act or the PCA’s permit for the Clean Water Act they are considered waters of the State but, but the land that the wetland is on is owned by that landowner. That fee title so I cannot come onto it and utilize like I could a lake. I couldn’t come onto it. Councilman Laufenburger: But the use of that and the modification of that is subject to guidelines by the DNR, am I saying that correctly? Terry Jeffery: Yes. The State through various agencies have determined that they are important enough to project. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So not only is, the homeowner can’t, or the landowner can’t just be willy nilly they can’t do anything? If there is wetland there, the DNR oversees what can be done with that? Terry Jeffery: The DNR or other agencies. Councilman Laufenburger: Or other agencies. And Chanhassen is one of those agencies, right? Terry Jeffery: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so this wetland alteration permit applies only during construction? The 1.42 acres of wetland. Terry Jeffery: They are allowed to permanently fill 1.42 acres of wetland in that area for the completion of this project provided that they mitigate that at a 2 to 1 ratio elsewhere. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And once that’s, once that 1.42 acres has been altered as necessary to complete the project, will it be returned to it’s original state or not? Terry Jeffery: No. No. Councilman Laufenburger: So this permit says you don’t have to return it to it’s original state. You have permission to modify that 1.42 acres for purposes of building this road. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 29 Terry Jeffery: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. We’re getting somewhere here Terry, thanks. Why 40 feet into the property? Terry Jeffery: In order to meet safety design standards, and please step in if I’m wrong, they need to have a minimum side slope of 3 to 1. Councilman Laufenburger: So this is related to the corridor. The road corridor, is that right Mr. Oehme? Terry Jeffery: Correct. Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so 40 feet. So is it, is it 40, 40 additional feet onto the property or is it, is it 12 additional feet onto the property as opposed to, Mr. Weckman do you know? Todd Gerhardt: Bring up the plan that shows the culvert. I think you bought some additional right-of- way… Paul Oehme: Well here’s a. Mark Anderson: Yeah this plan is one representation of the additional land area that is projecting into the PPB Holding property. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Anderson do you know with certainty how long the current 18 inch pipe goes into the property? Mark Anderson: I believe it’s within the right-of-way at this time. Rick Dorsey: No it isn’t. Mark Anderson: It’s not. Okay. Rick Dorsey: I currently have about 90 feet… Councilman Laufenburger: I really need to have him answer that at the. Rick Dorsey: Mayor, council, my name is Rick Dorsey. The pipe, this road has since I’ve owned the property in 1979, it started out about 25 foot wide dirt road and it had a 15 inch culvert originally and about 25 feet long. In 1981 the road was widened. A big embankment was put on my property and that pipe extended then to 90 feet in length. Most of it on my property. There’s been no real additional land purchased on the north side of the road so that hasn’t changed and it’s going from 90 feet to 130 feet. Current plan so it’s coming another 40 feet in. Now again. Councilman Laufenburger: So let me just make sure. My question was, how much more does the pipe protrude onto your property than it did before and you’re saying it’s almost 40 feet. Rick Dorsey: Correct and prior to that the end of it was not on county property either. They put it in unbeknown to me when it was being constructed in 1979, or 1980. The road easement was coming in I believe about 40 feet from the center of the road and that pipe came in approximately another 20 feet Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 30 beyond the right-of-way at that point in time. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Mr. Dorsey. Rick Dorsey: Yep. Councilman Laufenburger: I just have one last question and I think it may be, I’m not sure who this goes to but, was there right, was there additional right-of-way purchased for the, in order to build the road? Mr. Oehme, do you know? Was there additional right-of-way purchased from PPB Holding in order to build? Bill Weckman: Or easements. Councilman Laufenburger: Or easements, yeah. Paul Oehme: Or easements. There, I believe there are and do you have that drawing? Mayor Furlong: So it’s in the process? Is it in process of condemnation? Paul Oehme: It’s in, it’s going through the right-of-way acquisition process right now. There is in place or proposed right-of-way that’s going to be acquired plus the temporary easement that we had talked about as well so there is both. Councilman Laufenburger: I don’t need to know the exact amount but my assumption is that if the County needs more land in order to build this road they will buy that in the form of, either buying the land or buying the easement for that land from PPB Holding, is that correct Mr. Oehme? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Thank you Mr. Mayor. That’s all I had. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Jeffery or Mr. Oehme, the wetland, the 1.42 acre portion of the wetlands, is that the entire wetland at that location or is the wetland actually larger and they’re just mitigating or dealing with 1.42 acres? Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor, the wetland is actually larger and they’re just mitigating or impacting the 1.42 acres. Mayor Furlong: So with regard to, so what’s before us tonight is that, impact on a portion of the wetland in that location and that’s being mitigated and so the question is, is it being mitigated? Terry Jeffery: That is correct. Mark Anderson: There haven’t been any improved wetlands on the PPB Holding property at this time so it’s unknown. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you Mr. Anderson. Directing the question to staff. Terry Jeffery: There is no legally approved wetland boundary extending beyond the approved right, or the proposed right-of-way. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 31 Mayor Furlong: And when… Terry Jeffery: And in my professional opinion having done this since 2004 or since 1994 there is additional wetland that extends beyond. Mayor Furlong: And when would that wetland be delineated and. Terry Jeffery: If in the future the, Mr. Mayor if in the future the property owner of that land chose to delineate it for a project. Mayor Furlong: For a development project? Terry Jeffery: For development project for instance, they would be delineated at that time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Laufenburger: Just a follow up Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Yep. Councilman Laufenburger: Did I hear you correctly Terry? You said that there is no approved wetland in this area on the PPB? Terry Jeffery: Beyond. Councilman Laufenburger: Beyond the 1.42. Mayor Furlong: No. Terry Jeffery: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Laufenburger the, can you bring up my slide again? Mayor Furlong: Is the 1.42, that’s within the construction limits? Terry Jeffery: Yep. Yeah, bring up that one right there. Yep. So the red that is shown on there. Councilman Laufenburger: That’s the one. Terry Jeffery: Is the limits that were looked at. The yellow that is shown are the delineated boundaries that were approved as part of this process through the final Houston Engineering delineation. Oh, they are not impacting in it’s entirety. Mayor Furlong: So does the wetland, that yellow line through there, that’s the edge of the wetland based on the delineation of the permit process? Is that what I heard you say? Terry Jeffery: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And does the wetland extend to the south or to the north of that yellow line? Terry Jeffery: It extends south of that yellow line. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 32 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so the 1.42 acres is the distance between the yellow line south to the red line? Or wherever there’s wetland within that, within the red line area. Terry Jeffery: It is from the northern yellow line to that point at which, which is not shown on this. This just shows the delineation. South of that yellow line to a point where the limits of the grading for the toe of slope occur. In some places, it’s not that entire area that’s being shown. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Does the red line, what does the red represent? Terry Jeffery: Their scope. Their limit of review for doing the delineation. Mayor Furlong: And they being? Terry Jeffery: Houston Engineering. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: And that would either be the permit or construction easement boundary. Terry Jeffery: Perhaps, yes. It should coincide with that. Clearly moving east though they’re not showing the full boundary but yes. It would coincide with the right-of-way. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Terry Jeffery: And the Notice of Decision for the wetland delineation specifically states this applies only to that portion which is within the proposed right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard. So the delineation itself was approved. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? No? Thoughts or comments by council? Councilman McDonald: Yeah I’ve got a couple comments. Okay I’ve listened to all of this and I guess where I’m having a problem with it is that, again as I said who’s going to drive development on this site and it really didn’t make any difference. If the County’s got a better idea then that’s fine but my problem is they should pay for that. It bothers me that you haven’t finalized easements, right-of-way’s, how much property is going to be taken. You’ve got a landowner that’s coming before the City as this is kind of his last gasp to get the County to negotiate because once we approve this and you start construction, you put the landowner at a difficult position. Or you force the landowner’s hands and now we’re in a lawsuit and this road doesn’t get built for a couple years and that wouldn’t be good for anyone. I’m in favor of tabling this and forcing resolution at the county level to get these issues resolved while there is still some leverage at this point to get a fair market price for the landowner. Or they get a fair assessment you know as to what’s happening to the property. I hear what Terry says and then at the same time you tell me but it could impact it and it could do this. There’s too many if’s. There’s no certainty. You can’t build anything without certainty. I mean I’m an engineer. You can’t do that or else you’re asking for trouble. I’m also the lawyer in all of this. You’re also asking for trouble. It bothers me that you have not brought a completed package before us so I’m in favor of delaying it. I can’t vote for the delineation at this point. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Other thoughts. Comments. Councilwoman Ernst. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 33 Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, I’m in agreement with Councilman McDonald. You know we’re asking to approve a project that really doesn’t convey the entire design of the project, in particular where the water will ultimately end up or the conveyance of the water and based on all the gray areas and the predictions that seem like well, we’ll wait and see. Then we might do something about it. I’m just not comfortable approving this at this time. Once we know what it really looks like then we can take another look at it. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. We have to go back and look at the issue before you today. We already awarded contract on this project. We’ve enter into a contract with a builder and any delays may come back as damages to the City in this project and so it’d be my recommendation that you approved the wetland alteration permit before you and have staff direct a letter to the County to work with the property owner and have this resolved within 60 days. If not bring it back to council and you know, to see why we haven’t got some type of conclusion within 60 days. Mayor Furlong: You say we’ve awarded contract. Haven’t we also approved the plans? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: I mean the plans for this project were approved by both the County and the council. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Previously so I think, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, and forgive me I’ve been listening to this quietly trying to soak it all in. I’m still confused about why there’s a project that we’re supposed to approve or not approve and it’s still not coherent or conclusive that it’s complete or not complete and what role I guess the City has in this project versus the County and why it would come to us if there’s still outstanding questions. I don’t have a problem with the project. I just want to make sure that we are acting within our rights as a city and you know and like I said why this is even coming to us like this so if someone could just explain that to me. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. The property owner is at his wits end. He is asking you to help him in getting negotiations with the County underway and completed and this is his last straw to be in front of a board. And unfortunately it’s under the wetland alteration permit and it’s after we’ve already entered into a contract with a builder. You know I can feel for him but delaying this is not in the best interest of the City or the project. You know it would be my recommendation that staff be directed to work with Carver County Public Works in getting something resolved here regarding pushing water onto a private property. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that was my question I think a half hour ago when you know we started really delving into this I said, you know is this a county issue? Has the applicant dealt with the County because this clearly is an applicant/County issue. Not a City/applicant issue. Todd Gerhardt: Well we’re kind of in this jointly with Carver County. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. I understand that we’re all married into it somehow. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 34 Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But at the same time like I said, I just don’t understand. I don’t want to be played in that role as being you know part of that piece of the puzzle that either delays a project for whatever reason so I just want to make sure that tonight we do the best thing for the city of Chanhassen and our projects and our commitments that we’ve made so far. Todd Gerhardt: Well I don’t know if the property owner would you know support my recommendation to you or not you know where we would get involved and have the three parties sit down and get some conclusion to this within the next 60 days and if not bring it back to council and say we still haven’t resolved the issue and, and we can bring this issue back as many times as you want and try to get the issue resolved. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But it’s not our issue. I mean it is but it’s not. Mayor Furlong: Well I guess the question I have is with regard to the issue before us, which is the wetland alteration permit. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Mayor Furlong: And does it meet the requirements of that? What I’ve heard tonight is it does based upon the design. The question, and you know these questions come up. Property owners have a right to question and continue to question and question and question if they want to, and there’s nothing that says either that they have to agree with the proposal from the County or the City at any point in time. Whether that’s 60 days or 6 days or 6 years. I mean but there’s a process there that’s available if there still is disagreement so the question I think before us tonight is does the wetland alteration permit meet the requirements of the State. The State statutes on all the issues and, and does it meet the requirements before us and if it does I think we should go forward with the approval. I certainly think the city staff and county and the property owner need to sit down and try to resolve some of these things, and if with that resolution there’s a change in design and that change in design requires an amendment to the wetland alteration permit, it will be back before us. But with regard to the design that’s been approved and that’s moving forward what I heard tonight is that this application meets all those requirements. Meets the State statues and any other guiding requirements and so I think you know, is the issue before us should it be approved? I think it should be. That doesn’t preclude us from directing staff to say, sit down with the County. Try to facilitate this. See if something can be worked out okay and going forward. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: If I could Mr. Mayor. First I’ve got a question for Mr. Gerhardt. Okay, it goes out 60 days. What’s our remedy at that point if we’ve already approved all of this and everything’s now going down a road, what difference does that make? Yeah you’re right you can bring it back to us forever and ever but how does that resolve the problem? Todd Gerhardt: Well what it does is it reserves a right to bring it back on an agenda item you know so there’s a message between you, the property owner, the County and the City saying in 60 days if we don’t have resolution or moving this item along that we bring it back and have to answer to you, Mayor and council why we didn’t get resolution to this item regarding putting public water on a private property. Councilman Laufenburger: Could we mitigate the matter by withdrawing the permit? Could we, could we withdraw our approval of a permit in 60 days? Todd Gerhardt: I don’t know if there’s an appeal process once you approve it. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 35 Terry Jeffery: This is one time I wish Roger were here. Mr. Mayor I cannot answer that question intelligently. Councilman McDonald: Then Mr. Mayor if I could, a comment to what you brought up to us. I agree. Where I disagree is that when this project was brought before us I was under the impression it was complete. What I’m finding out tonight is, ah it wasn’t quite complete. Mayor Furlong: Well and what’s complete and what’s item of disagreement perhaps with the design. Councilman McDonald: Well yeah and you’ve got a major problem here that could impact a lot of things if they can’t reach resolution about where does this water go. I mean that’s a failure. Again that should have been disclosed where we could have asked a lot of questions a lot sooner in all this. You’re right about the wetlands permit and stuff, what does that have to do with anything? But as Mr. Gerhardt said, you know we’ve got a property owner within our city that is having a problem and he’s coming before the council and the only leverage that we’ve got, which is why I asked the question is, we don’t approve the permit and that forces people, okay you want to get this project done on time. You’d better solve the issue quick. That’s the only leverage we’ve got within the city and that’s why I’m concerned about okay, we push it out 60 days. Where’s our leverage? It’s yeah you’ve got to come in here and talk to us. Todd Gerhardt: Well I’m just telling your leverage is going to hurt the City in the pocketbook also. Councilman McDonald: Right and I understand that and that’s where I feel as though yeah, we’re between a rock and a hard place. Councilman Laufenburger: Explain, Mr. Gerhardt. Explain how does our leverage of 60 days, how does that hurt the City? You’re speaking with, with conviction and certainty and I’m wondering where that comes from. Todd Gerhardt: Any delay in the construction process, the contractor who we have awarded bid to can. Councilman Laufenburger: We did or the County has awarded? Todd Gerhardt: We did. Mayor Furlong: We concurred. Councilman Laufenburger: We concurred. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilman Laufenburger: The County awarded, we concurred. They’re using some of our money okay? Todd Gerhardt: Correct. And we gave our Municipal Consent for them to move ahead with the design and with that any delays would be damages back against the property which we would be subject to based on our road agreement and the percentages that we would contribute back to this project. Councilman Laufenburger: But are they going to rip up this culvert on April 15th? Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 36 Todd Gerhardt: It may not just be the culvert. It may be just mobilization. You get into road restrictions and a variety of issues and. Councilman McDonald: Well okay let me ask this question, and again I wish Roger were here but so we go ahead and approve all this and if the landowner then proceeds to court and they get an injunction, are we off the hook? I mean we’ve done everything, well hey he’s the one talking about you know we’re in a difficult position about penalties. What does the contract say about okay the landowner who has a recourse from a legal perspective, where’s the contract on that? Are we still in jeopardy even if we approve this tonight? Todd Gerhardt: Potentially. Councilman McDonald: Potentially. Rick Dorsey: Mayor could I come up one second? Mayor Furlong: For what purpose? Rick Dorsey: I’m not trying to stop this project, number one. I’ve been working. Mayor Furlong: Two minutes Rick please. Rick Dorsey: I’m not interested in stopping the project. I put that forth 2 weeks ago when we met in front of the Planning Commission. We asked to get the County to sit down and get this, a plan worked out. It hasn’t happened. We’ve had a little talk but it hasn’t happened. My biggest concern is dealing with the water. With respect to the wetland issue, and that’s really what we’re here for is dealing with the wetland issue. I have legal recourses if I need to take them I guess. I’d just as soon not do that but with respect to the wetland issue, the issue that’s before you is, is there more wetland that’s being impacted than what is being disclosed and you’re not going to see anybody come back and tell you more was impacted unless I do because you’re not going to go out and inspect it and you don’t know what’s there today and what’s been marked off. There will be more wetland impacted because they’ve only gone to the toe of the slope. That slope is 25 feet high at 3 to 1 slope. I believe it’s 3 to 1. There’s no way a tractor’s going to be able to do anything without going another 20-30 feet beyond that to back up and down the side of that hill. There’s well, there’s water that’s going to be brought in. It will not drain. It’s coming in my property basically flat. They say positive drainage. My neighbor to the west will have a ditch. I’ll have flat drainage. It’s going to sheet drain across until it gets to their ditch. It’s going to create more wetland perhaps. How do I deal with that because they’re not putting the ditch in that’s necessary to replace the ditch that’s there? Now the other thing is that they’re coming further into my property. Every time, this is the third time. Or third time this road’s been built. Two of them I’ve been a part of. The first time it was 25 feet wide. Mayor Furlong: You mentioned that earlier. Rick Dorsey: Okay, it’s now comes into my, it came in 40 feet. Now we’re into about 90 feet into my property and we’re pushing water in that used to come 20 feet or whatever into my property. Now we’re in 50-80 feet further. Every time it comes in further, and there’s no easements. There’s nothing there but I get the water. The size of the pipe, I’m sure the consultants are dealing with that because the anticipation is there’ll be growth on the north side of town. There’ll be more hard surface. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 37 Rick Dorsey: So there are issues that are there. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Rick Dorsey: I’m willing to take, I don’t want 60 days. I’m ready tomorrow. I’ll meet with somebody tomorrow. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you Mr. Dorsey. When is the construction due to start on this project based upon, Mr. Oehme do you know? Paul Oehme: Mayor I believe right after road restrictions so May timeframe. Bill Weckman: The contract is April 15th. Mayor Furlong: April 15th, alright. Paul Oehme: April 15th. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Do we have a couple meeting between now and April 15th? I think we have one on the 13th don’t we? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Would it make sense to table this until the 13th to give the County and City time to sit down with the property owner and he’s just stated he’s willing to meet right away, tomorrow if necessary and maybe there can’t be a resolution but if not at least we’ve. I mean I believe based upon the issue at hand, I think this is being used for something which it’s not intended and I would be comfortable moving forward tonight approving this based upon the facts presented to us for this permit. I think this other issue is still going to be there. If a majority of the council wants to allow this to be used as a tool to delay then I would certainly support that we minimize that to our next meeting which would be I think our first meeting in April. But I would certainly pursue, or prefer to go forward this evening because I think the facts and circumstances justify us doing so. Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah I just, and I don’t want to challenge your words Mayor but I am going to challenge just 3 words you used. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: Tool to delay. I don’t believe this is a tool to delay. This is a tool that the property owner would like to use as leverage to move quickly forward and this appears to be movement that he has not seen from the County to his, to his acceptance so I don’t think it’s a tool to delay. I think it’s a tool for action. Mr. Weckman I think you had a comment. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah I guess. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry. Mayor Furlong: Oh. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 38 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry. No I didn’t mean to interrupt or anything. Mayor Furlong: Do you have a comment? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I do. Talking about tools for delaying and the County, I mean the County is here. Why hasn’t this been resolved before tonight? Why do we have to be a tool to you know for Mr. Dorsey to come back and negotiate with you. Mayor Furlong: For whatever purpose. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah. Bill Weckman: Okay Mr. Mayor and council. I believe this response letter is included in the packet or somewhere in there. It’s. Mayor Furlong: Do you know what page it’s on? Bill Weckman: When these concerns came up and Mr. Anderson sent a letter to the County and February 24th we responded. February 25th but I mean there was work done before this February 25th response as far as trying to find the answers in order so we could respond. Regarding the 24 inch culvert and such, there is concern as far as redirecting that water whatever. What impact that may have to potential wetlands to the south. Well not being able to delineate those wetlands, you don’t know for sure what is there and what the potential is so. Mayor Furlong: And why weren’t those delineated then, if that would be necessary to respond? Todd Gerhardt: We didn’t have permission to go on the property. Bill Weckman: We didn’t have permission to go onto the property to delineate the wetlands. So we don’t know will diverting that water what the impacts may or may not be and there again we talked to the City about that and yes, that’s something that could be done but it’s a matter of sequencing and doing that. In doing that job. As far as addressing some of these other things we, Mr. Dorsey, well the property owner had an interest in us putting a right turn lane on and extending that slope and we asked the City is that a possibility but again yes, it’s a possibility but there’s a process that has to be gone through and that process has to be initiated by the property owner. So I don’t know, Mr. Dorsey is saying the County hasn’t done anything. I think this letter of February 25th in essence puts it in Mr. Dorsey’s hand that if he wants something done on that property, to initiate it. Mayor Furlong: And that letter’s in the packet on page, or electronic packet on page 233. Bill Weckman: Yes. Yes it is. And so if Mr. Dorsey wants to come into the City and initiate this and work through the process, the County is willing to work with Mr. Dorsey and the City to address these concerns. The other process that is going on here is the right-of-way acquisition process and we’ve been going through that process and had an appraiser look at the plan and the impacts of the property and an appraisal was done as far as the impacts and an offer was made for the right-of-way. We haven’t resolved that. We are in negotiations. Because of the scheduling of the project, yes. There was condemnation that is filed. We do have the right to access the property through that process. In that process, if Mr. Dorsey is impacted, if it’s a negative impact here, a damage he has the right to compensation for that. That has yet to be determined. I mean if we cannot negotiate a settlement it will go through the Land Commissioners. As far as that process unfortunately we’ve been having a difficult time getting a third land commissioner. The land commissioners that we agree upon, when we try to get an appointment we Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 39 find out they are not available or have a conflict of interest and cannot be a land commissioner for this particular project but, so that is another process that is going on. So if there are damages there and the property owner has legal rights to fair compensation for those damages and that will be determined through the land commissioner process or appeals to that process if we cannot reach a negotiated settlement. Councilman McDonald: Well excuse me, something you said you need to clarify that. Have you started a condemnation action at this point? Bill Weckman: Yes. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Bill Weckman: Mr. Mayor, councilman, yes. The condemnation, I’m sorry I’m not prepared to answer as far as specific dates but it was a few months ago where the condemnation hearing was held. We have right to access this property or, and yes there is additional right-of-way being purchased. The permanent roadway right-of-way is a fee title. It is a property purchase. That flood line is a temporary easement. Around the culvert it’s a drainage easement. In our letter we do mention that yes, we do need to look at is there a need for some additional permanent drainage easement as compensation to the property owner due to the impacts of this project. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilwoman Ernst: Sure Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: So can you tell me if we go, if we do approve this and we say tonight okay County, City work with the resident or work with Mr. Dorsey and see if you can resolve this in the next 2 weeks, is that possible? Bill Weckman: Mr. Mayor and councilwoman, I guess from the responses I’ve been hearing to have it completely resolved, it doesn’t sound like it is possible because to go through some of these is a process and it needs to be looked at. Councilwoman Ernst: So do you have a timeline as to how quickly it could be resolved? Bill Weckman: I first as I see it the property owner has to make a proposal on what they want done here. So we can address that. Councilwoman Ernst: Have they not told you what needs to be done? Bill Weckman: They’ve not formally applied to the City or, I mean we can’t. Mayor Furlong: Are you referring to the road project or are you referring to development of his property? Bill Weckman: Work on his property and what would occur on his property. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah I think you know where we’re at is that Mr. Dorsey can go through the condemnation process. That is the set schedule. As soon as we can find that third commissioner that could hear each side’s story and make a determination on value. I think Mr. Weckman has said that Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 40 there’s been a counter proposal to change the construction easement into a permanent easement. Is that, did I hear you correctly? Bill Weckman: No there has not been a formal counter proposal. In our response to Mr. Dorsey we did indicate that. Todd Gerhardt: You would look at it. Bill Weckman: We would look at that as a possible resolution to his concerns as far as is water going over private property or whatever. To in fact put a permanent drainage easement on that area and compensate for that drainage easement. Todd Gerhardt: But at any time your right-of-way people would sit down with Mr. Dorsey if he would like to try to settle this but you have parameters of which you have to work within. Bill Weckman: Well right. I mean we have, we have our appraisal on what the values are and what the impacts are and we can work with that. The property owner has a right to have their appraiser and own appraisal done and which in fact the County would have to pay for. We haven’t seen that type of an appraisal. That’s one way to try to negotiate this way out and there again, if we can’t negotiate it, well then it’s go to the Land Commissioners and each side present their case and the Land Commissioners determine what’s fair compensation for damages or impacts we’re doing to the property. Councilwoman Ernst: It’s just hard for us, for me to approve this tonight when I don’t know it’s going to get done and when. That’s my concern. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: It’s going to get done. Councilwoman Ernst: But when? Todd Gerhardt: You know it’s sometime. It’s got to be done. As soon as you can find a third commissioner to hear it, but you know you can’t but he’s assured that he’s going to get some type of compensation. I think you have already settled with some property owners along the corridor. Bill Weckman: Ah yes. We’ve settled with a number of property owners or close to a settlement on a couple more. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Gerhardt if I could. One of the things that he just said at the end that changes a lot of things for me is the fact there is a condemnation process. That wasn’t brought up earlier. Under the law they can go in there and start doing all this construction and you can settle it out later but you know they’re forced by law, by statute, you’re right. There’s a process. So that’s why I asked, okay if you’ve already started a condemnation proceeding then this has kind of gone beyond us but if you want to have Mr. Knutson you know write to the council and express that yeah, our holding up this permit is not going to accomplish a thing. Just because of where that’s at so I mean, that’s where it’s at. It’s already transitioned over to the legal recourse side of all this. If it’s in condemnation then there’s nothing we can do so. Mayor Furlong: So are you suggesting, Mr. McDonald are you suggesting that we go forward with the proposed resolution this evening? Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 41 Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I’m proposing now yeah. We might as well go forward with the resolution because we have no impact and there is the down side of, as Mr. Gerhardt says, there’s probably penalties built into the contract. I don’t feel comfortable incurring penalties when there’s nothing I can do about it and at this point I can’t do anything about it. You know we hold it up, it’s not going to make that process of condemnation go any quicker or any faster. It’s a set process and it does under statute it allows the state entities to come in. You can start construction and we’ll argue over fair market value and everything at a later date. It allows projects to move forward. That’s why the law was written that way. Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald, would you like to make the motion then for this evening? Councilman McDonald: Sure if they put it back up. I’ve forgotten what it was. Mayor Furlong: It’s in your packet as well. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Councilman Laufenburger: Page 124. Councilman McDonald: I would make a motion Mr. Mayor that the Chanhassen City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-05 and the WCA Permit #2013-01 for the purpose of the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway 18 (Lyman Boulevard) Roadway Improvement Project, Phase 3 and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of the wetland replacement as shown in application dated February 11, 2014, subject to conditions within the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to continue then? And. Councilman McDonald: Oh, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Is there discussion on the motion before us? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I think as has been made clear, this wetland alteration permit is needed for the building of the road. I do not disagree with Mr. Anderson’s position as he’s expressing them on the part of Mr. Dorsey that what we don’t know is what’s going to happen to the water that comes through that culvert after the construction is complete. But it’s clear to me that the conveyance of that water, whether it’s flat. Whether it’s graded or whatever, that’s outside of what this permit is supposed to do so I don’t believe that there’s anything that we can do to accelerate, to prone, you know work for action. All we can do is encourage and support Mr. Dorsey in his efforts with the County to try to get them to understand that in his view his property’s going to be impacted and the County needs to at least listen. Maybe not agree but at least listen to that in an effective way. I’m prepared by support this motion as it stands. Councilwoman Ernst: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 42 Councilwoman Ernst: Yes now that I’ve had some clarification on the condemnation process, that does change it for me as well but I would also like to see the County continue to work diligently to try and resolve this issue. And I know that there are processes that you need to follow and it sounds like it’s kind of on their timeline but I would only ask that that happens so I would support this as well. Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion? Hearing none, without objection we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-05 and WCA Permit Number 2013-01 for the purpose of the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 (Lyman Boulevard) Roadway Improvements Project, Phase 3; and authorizes the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in application dated February 11, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2.An appeal has been filed on behalf of Mr. Rick Dorsey. This is an appeal of staff decision to deny a request for a No-Loss determination for Wetland 1A. Any approval of mitigation quantities shall be contingent upon the outcome of this appeal. The county may hold any additional credits and apply those credits to future phases of the Lyman (CSAH 18) reconstruction project. 3.If it is determined that secondary impacts will occur to wetland 1A as a result of the proposed improvements, these impacts will need to be mitigated for at a 2:1 ratio. 4.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 5.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 6.The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 7.The applicant must obtain, and the city must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 8.A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to city prior to commencement of activity. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 43 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Hopefully we can find a resolution quickly. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS. Mayor Furlong: Over the course of our last two work sessions the City Council interviewed a number of applicants who are interested in serving on one of our four or as an alternate different commissions. Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Senior Commission, and Environmental Commission and tonight I’d like to put forth nominations or move the nominations for some of our residents who have agreed to give of their time, talent, and service for the benefit of all of us and we appreciate that. With regard to the Environmental Commission, if it’s okay with the council we’ll just move through these in it’s entirety and then I’ll ask for a second. We’ll discuss at that point. With the Environmental Commission there are two 3 year terms. We move the nomination of Katie Mahannah and Matthew Myers for those two 3 year terms. With regard to the Senior Commission we would move the nomination of Carol Buesgens and David Wisniewski, and excuse me if I mispronounce for 3 year appointments and Jean Mancini for a 2 year appointment with that term expiring in March of ’16 and the other two in March of ’17. With regard to the Park and Rec Commission we would move for the appointment for 3 years each for Brent Carron, Luke Thunberg and Steve Scharfenberg. And for, as commission members, 3 year commission members and two youth commission members for 1 year term each, Jacob Stolar and Tyler Kobilarcsik. And then with regard to the Planning Commission move forward for a 3 year appointment, Mark Undestad. At this time I would ask for a second to those nominations. Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the nominations? Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor I know you’re getting tired of hearing from me but. Mayor Furlong: Not at all. I always appreciate your comments. Councilman McDonald: I just want to say, I want to thank the residents, everyone who came out. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald: It’s a, you know without our commissions it makes our job that much more difficult. They do act as a filter as a point of contact for us for the residents. They perform an invaluable service and I think you know the council, if I could speak for everyone but we do appreciate their works and we do appreciate people who volunteer for these positions so if you didn’t get selected it has, we just ran out of room, that’s all there is to it but I would encourage everyone to apply again to these commissions. Openings pop up quite often and again thank you for everybody. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate those comments. Any other comments? Seeing none we’ll proceed with the vote without objection. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to approve the following commission appointments: Environmental Commission: 3 Year Term: Katie Mahannah and Matthew Myers Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 44 Senior Commission: 3 Year Term: Carol Buesgens and David Wisniewski; 2 Year Term: Jean Mancini Park and Recreation Commission: 3 Year Term: Brent Carron, Luke Thunberg and Steve Scharfenberg; 1 Year Youth Commission Term: Jacob Stolar and Tyler Kobilarcsik Planning Commission: 3 Year Term: Mark Undestad All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Congratulations to those appointments and again we appreciate your willingness to serve for our benefit and benefit of all the residents and businesses in town. With that, that completes our items of new business. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Any comments from members of the council under council presentations? Tomorrow at. Councilman McDonald: If I? Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I’m just full of all kinds of… Mayor Furlong: Not at all. I should have just said Mr. McDonald at the beginning. Councilman McDonald: Well it’s one of those days. I just wanted to say that you know one of the things that I did last week, I attended the AIS symposium that the watershed district puts on and I met quite a few people and this, each year it does get bigger. It’s interesting to see how things are beginning to change a little bit as to the outlook of how this needs to be resolved and in my opinion one of the things that we as a city have done is what everyone says needs to be done. The only way you’re going to deal with this problem is education and I think we have set up programs where that’s been our primary focus is to educate the boaters and the users of the lakes to all of these various species and the thing that was interesting was, the list has grown. You know from the 2 years ago that I attended but again it’s being born out that what we have done in trying to educate boaters and explain to them what to look for. Where to look for and to do as much as what is humanly possible, I again think that we’re within the norm and in fact a little bit ahead of the curve so it was interesting. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any other comments under council presentations? I am looking forward to presenting an update on city events at the Buy Chanhassen luncheon tomorrow. 11:30 at the American Legion and I know that there’s still space available so anybody interested that would like to attend. I know that Buy Chanhassen organization would appreciate your attendance so. Mr. Gerhardt, administrative presentations. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Just one item to announce to the public that we have selected a new fire chief. This is our first full time Fire Chief and happy to announce that Don Johnson from, he lives in Lakeville. He’s got a Farmington address so it’s kind of nice to know that we’re not alone. Mayor Furlong: He understands. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I said that’s nothing. We have a mayor that has an Excelsior mailing address so, but Don has been a volunteer fire fighter in Lakeville for 14 years. Is a station captain. The end of this Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 45 month he will have finished his Fire Science degree and he also has over 20 years of experience working with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office and has had a variety of different roles through the sheriff’s office. Promoted within the ranks several times. Is currently working for Hennepin County Corrections and in helping them out on some special projects and he was hand selected to do that so I’m excited to see Don come to Chanhassen. His start date is May 5th and he will be in front of the council, be sworn in on our May 12th meeting and so everybody will have a chance to meet Don and probably have some cake. I know that’s a special day when we have cake in the council chambers so, but I have sent out a press release informing people of Don’s background and informed the volunteers of my decision and some of them have expressed support during that process and appreciate that and, because you can’t have enough support around here but I’m excited for the placement of Don as our new fire chief. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff? Councilman McDonald: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: I’m sorry but you know I mean whenever someone does something really good I think you should recognize him and the only point I wanted to make was that, you know I’ve been aware of what Mr. Gerhardt’s been doing for the selection of the fire chief and I have to say I think he ran a very fair and thorough process and what he looked at was what’s in the best interest of our community. I mean he could have just gone out and hired somebody himself and you know we would have gone through with it but I think because he solicited the input from so many different areas within public safety that my hat’s off to you for that selection process and the way you did it so I appreciate it. I think that we’ve got a good fire chief for the community and going forward we’re in good hands so thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. Yeah it was a long day last Wednesday and we put a few of the applicants through a series of questions. I want to thank Sheriff Jim Olson for sitting in on the initial interviews along with Joel McColl. Savage Fire Chief and Laurie Hokkanen, the Assistant City Manager did a lot of the leg work on all of this and so it was quite a process. We had over 17 volunteers that sat in. All the department heads sat in on a series of interviews last week and so we got a lot of input and I think with that you usually get a good conclusion and that’s where we are. Mayor Furlong: And I guess I, when you extend appreciation for a job well done I think we’d be remiss without making comment too about our current chief, Chief Wolff and the work that he has done over the years as chief and his ability to move the department forward to where it is today so we can take this next logical step towards a full time chief and so I’m hoping that we’ll have an opportunity to extend our thanks to him at a future date more formally but I think for the record this evening I think it’s important that we recognize his efforts and extend our thanks and appreciation on behalf of the residents and businesses as well. Any other questions or comments for Mr. Gerhardt? Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: No. No… Mayor Furlong: The one time I go straight to you and now you don’t have any. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Chanhassen City Council – March 24, 2014 46 Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MARCH 18, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 101 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING AND CSAH 61 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PLANNING CASE 2014-10: 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. Krista Spreiter presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller asked for clarification on the alternatives explored and bridge construction. Commissioner Withrow asked staff to explain why the 9.82 acre causeway is not counted towards mitigation. Commissioner Weick asked for clarification of the safety concerns being addressed. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-10 and WCA Permit #2014-01 to impact 4.96 acres of wetland and the replacement plan under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of .16 acres of wetland credit from Bank #1175 and 9.76 acres from the BWSR Road Replacement Program for the purpose of the proposed Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements Project; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated December 20, 2013, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 3.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. Planning Commission Summary – March 18, 2014 2 4.The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 5.The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of an Application of Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 6.A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commandment of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf moved, and Commissioner Hokkanen seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 4, 2014 as presented. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS. Chairman Aller thanked Commissioner Withrow for his service on the Planning Commission. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Kate Aanenson presented an update on action taken by the City Council at their March 10, 2014 meeting and schedule of future Planning Commission agenda items. Undestad moved, Weick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Kim Tennyson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 101 MINNESOTA RIVER CROSSING AND CSAH 61 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, PLANNING CASE 2014-10: 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. Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing for the proposed Minnesota River crossing and roadway improvements project wetland alteration permit. The project is located at the existing wye intersection of Highway 61 and 101. The project lies within the Highway 61 corridor from just west of Bluff Creek Drive to just east of the wye intersection and within the Highway 101 corridor from the current intersection to the city of Shakopee. There’s a closer view of the project. The area in blue denotes the project area as well as the area of investigation for wetland delineation. I realize this might be review for some of you but I’m just going to give a quick project overview of the bigger project. The goal of the project is to eliminate road closures during the 100 year flood events as well as improve safety and increase traffic capacity. The new bridge will cross the Minnesota River floodplain area and the resulting removal of the existing causeway is expected to restore natural flows to the floodplain area as well as restore a large amount of wetland habitat. Improvements to Highway 61 include increasing the current 2 lane roadway to a 4 land roadway and the addition of two roundabouts. The largest roundabout will be located at the existing wye intersection and the second at the Bluff Creek Drive and Highway 61 intersection. The proposed Bluff Creek realignment will lengthen the existing segment of the creek within the wye intersection and reduce the current slope from about 2.3% to .5%. A pedestrian trail is also proposed with the project that will connect local trails in both Chanhassen Shakopee to the Hennepin County regional trail corridor as well as future local and regional trail systems. Level 1 delineations were performed for the project area by both SEH and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Wetland areas denoted with a S were delineated by SEH. That’s the consultant for the project while the wetland areas starting with the letter D were delineated by MnDOT. A level 1 delineation is used in cases where a sufficient amount of information is available for a site to make an off site determination. In this case it was also used because of the amount of area that they had to cover with their delineations and resources used as part of the delineations include national wetland inventory mapping. Public waters inventory mapping. Carver County soils survey mapping and historical aerial photography among others. Both delineations were field verified by the delineators and the Technical Evaluation Panel during the summer of 2013. This is just a larger aerial view of the project and the impact areas. This table shows each impact and their corresponding classification as well as impact. The largest impacts are proposed for Wetland D-11. This is due to the construction of the proposed roundabout which is located within the existing wye intersection. And Wetlands 5 and 6 located immediately north of the existing wye intersection. This is due to the expansion of Highway 61 and the Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 2 proposed pedestrian trail. This depicts the impacts on the western portion of the project. Wetlands S-1, 2 and 3 are all either Type 2, fresh wet meadow or Type 3, shallow marsh wetlands. They’re all classified as preserve or outstanding wetlands under the City’s classification system. You’ll notice Wetland 3 there in the northwest corner of that intersection. That’s actually part of the larger Seminary Fen wetland complex but it is not within the DNR’s scientific and natural area. Wetlands 5 and 6 are located just north of the wye intersection. Both are Type 2 and classified as Manage 2 under the City’s classification system. D-11 and D-8, which are located in the existing wye intersection are both Type 2 and they’re not classified under our system. Impacts are also proposed to Bluff Creek in this area as part of the realignment and I’ll discuss more on that in a little bit. Here are the wetland impacts to the floodplain area. Impacts to the floodplain area are a result of the placement of bent piles. There’s the proposed total impact is .21 acres. These are, all wetlands within this area are Type 3, shallow marsh wetland and classified as preserve wetland under the City’s classification system. There are .47 acres of impact associated with the realignment of Bluff Creek within the proposed roundabout area. The existing culverts will be removed and be replaced with bridges and the creek will be allowed to flow under the bridges. This will allow for some lengthening of the section of creek and allow for additional meandering as well as the reduction in grade. This is just the plan view of that realignment. You can, maybe you can see. Doesn’t show up really well up on the screen but in the lower left hand section here they have a cross section of the creek bed. There is some stream bed remediation proposed as part of the realignment. They’re bringing in some rip rap and some filter aggregate for some additional stabilization. The proposed bridge will include 37 piers to be placed within the Minnesota River floodplain area. Each pier consists of 8 to 11 bent piles. Approximately 25 square feet of impact for each pile. Removal of the existing causeway is planned for Phase 5, the final phase of the project. This is projected to restore about 9.82 acres of natural wetland habitat to the area. Following the removal the former causeway footprint will be restored to natural conditions and a wet meadow wetland seed mix will be used for permanent stabilization. This restoration cannot be counted as mitigation however. This is just an aerial view of the removal area. The Wetland Conservation Act requires the applicant, in this case Carver County, list at least two alternatives to the project that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands or waters. One of which may be no build or do nothing. Several alternatives were explored and are detailed in the application in the staff report. The preferred alternative or current project proposal was selected because it significantly reduced impacts for the bridge portion of the project. This is where much of the high quality wetland areas are located. The Wetland Conservation Act also requires the applicant to minimize unavoidable impacts to the greatest extent practicable. Efforts were made by the applicant to fulfill this requirement by locating Highway 61 closer to the existing alignment and using bent pile piers for the proposed bridge. This further reduced wetland impacts by approximately 2 1/2 acres. Wetland replacement for the project will be accomplished using two methods. Impacts associated with safety improvements, including stormwater features will be replaced using the Board of Water and Soil Resources road bank program. Impacts associated with the pedestrian trail or any non-safety related impacts will be replaced by the applicant, Carver County using credits purchased from Wetland Bank 1175 which is located in the same bank service area and major watershed area as the proposed project. Both replacements qualify for a 2 to 1 mitigation ratio. The applicant has sufficiently met the sequencing requirements for Wetland Conservation Act and made sufficient efforts to minimize impacts where possible. Therefore staff is recommending approval of the Minnesota River crossing and roadway improvements project wetland alteration permit and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. I do want to mention at this time that I received comments just recently from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. They have some concerns in regards to the effect of the project may take overall on the Seminary Fen. The applicant has yet to receive the comments so once they do we’ll ask for a response as soon as possible and have those included in the council report. Part of their request is for additional monitoring. They don’t give details on what they’d like to see but I have talked to the consultant and he’s willing to work with them and go over their request. With that, that is all I have. Thank you and I’ll take any questions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 3 Aller: So you’re looking at mitigation and alternatives. One of those alternatives was to do absolutely nothing. That’s always… Spreiter: Yep. Yep. Aller: And that was just totally unacceptable…better, safer highway system… Spreiter: Right and I think the fact that BWSR is willing to replace all but the pedestrian trail improvements from the roadway bank shows that the project is very safety driven and necessary. That they’ve made a lot of efforts to minimize impacts where possible and they didn’t just do the minimum of looking at two alternatives. One being no build. There were several alignments and several options that were looked at and reviewed. Aanenson: I was just going to add, I think that getting the road out of the floodplain was the main driver and then it went to the, that was the purpose and then trying to find the right alignment and then it falls back to what Krista was just saying. Looking through the different alternatives that way. Spreiter: I should say too, Lower Minnesota did include that they commend the removal of the causeway which restores the natural channel of the river and surrounding wetlands. Aller: Can you explain what the bridges are after you remove the causeway? There’s going to be bridges correct? Spreiter: Yep. So, and I don’t know the details of the project but the new proposed bridge will span the entire floodplain area. Right up until that wye intersection where now they have a causeway that’s I would say three-fourths of the way through the floodplain area and that’s just fill material that is obstructing flow and that they’ve filled wetland with. Aller: And then the piles that we have are, I’ve looked at the report and it sure looks like they’re minimalistic for the size that is there, the structure itself so I’m assuming that construction wise they’re safe but it also really minimizes the impact on that wetland it looks like. Spreiter: Correct and correct me if I’m wrong but they did go to the smaller piles. They originally were thinking of rip rap or something and instead are doing the piles as it minimizes impact. Aller: And it looks like it reduced it by about 2 1/2 acres. Aanenson: (Yes). Aller: Anyone have, and by the way the report was very good. It was very complete. Spreiter: Thank you. Aller: And I like the fact that it ties us back in with that broad overview so that we don’t lose the forest for the trees. You know the ultimate goal here is to have the large project done but in a way that minimizes the impacts so it’s good to know what the large project is when we’re looking at, at the smaller segments. Withrow: I have a question. Aller: Questions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 4 Withrow: This may be obvious to everybody else but not to me. Why is the 9.82 acre causeway not counted towards mitigation. Spreiter: That’s actually a good question. I believe it’s because they can’t quantify that. It’s not a guarantee. That’s what they project but because in the application you have to come up with solid, a solid mitigation plan with guaranteed replacement at that 2 to 1 ratio that they can’t count that. Withrow: …very conservative number. Spreiter: It’s definitely a plus of the project and I’m really excited to see what effect that will have on the area. Environmentally. Weick: We mentioned safety a couple times as a reason for the bridge. Is that related to flooding or traffic? Spreiter: I think both. Aanenson: Yeah. Spreiter: Kate. Aanenson: Yeah I would say the main thing right now is the seasonal flooding. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: And long term wise, well actually the trips have gone down right now since 212 is opened so we’ll talk about that in our meeting in 2 weeks when we talk about the update of our project on County Road 61 or CSAH 61. What we’re doing there so the trips are down but it seasonally floods and it’s a huge impediment to traffic moving back and forth over the river so that’s why the State moved up the funding on this program. This bridge crossing. So it’s a safety issue too. They did do some safety improvements a few years ago and that was at the intersection coming up off the wye. There was some lights put in, either side of that so kind of realigned that intersection. Trying to make some safety improvements there so. Weick: And it’s increasing right? It’s two lanes now. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: It’s going to four lanes. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: So would there be, if you only made it two lane, is there a significant less, significantly less of an impact on the wetland areas or does it not really matter? Spreiter: That I don’t know. I would assume there would be but probably not by much. Weick: Yeah. Spreiter: Not over the floodplain area anyway. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 5 Weick: Because you’d still need to do the posts or whatever. Spreiter: Yeah. Weick: Pylons. Spreiter: Yeah there might be more or less of them but. Weick: Okay. Spreiter: I guess I don’t know, I’m sorry. Aller: Any other questions? Weick: Those were all mine. Aller: Comments. Okay. At this point in time we’re going to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward. State a position either for or against this issue before us can do so at this time. And seeing no one coming forward I’m going to close the public hearing. Again I’ll open it for comments or discussion at this time. And if there are none then I’ll entertain a motion. Yusuf: I’ll do it. Aller: Okay. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-10 and WCA Permit #2014-01 to impact 4.96 acres of wetland and the replacement plan under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of .16 acres of wetland credit from Bank #1175 and 9.76 acres from the BWSR Road Replacement Program for the purpose of the proposed Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements Project; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated December 20, 2013, subject to conditions within the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-10 and WCA Permit #2014-01 to impact 4.96 acres of wetland and the replacement plan under Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of .16 acres of wetland credit from Bank #1175 and 9.76 acres from the BWSR Road Replacement Program for the purpose of the proposed Highway 101 Minnesota River Crossing and CSAH 61 Improvements Project; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint notification application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated December 20, 2013, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 6 1.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained, and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 3.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 4.The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 5.The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of an Application of Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 6.A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commandment of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf moved, and Commissioner Hokkanen seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 4, 2014 as presented. COMMISSIONER PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Before we go to those, I’d just like to announce that it’s my understanding that Commissioner Steve Withrow will not be with us after this meeting. This will be his last meeting and so we’d like to thank him for his insightful questions. He’s raised awareness on issues before us and it’s been a pleasure working with him on these matters of importance to all of us so thank you for your service. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. So at the council meeting on March 10th, two minor amendments were made to the Camden Ridge and that was the, going from the 5 and 10 to the 7 1/2-7 1/2 between the units and then Lakeside also went from the one 3 unit to the 2 so those were both approved so we’ll be issuing permits as we continue with both those subdivisions. I’ll talk about future Planning Commission meetings. So next month, April 1st, typically we will have our oath of office for our new commissioners. We also typically at that meeting do the administrative thing such as Chair, Vice Chair but maybe we’ll move that on to the next meeting so we have a full group for that so we’ll maybe move that but we will start at 6:00. We’ll do work session. The Water Resources Coordinator is going to go through the new stormwater regulations and the meeting tonight is kind of a segue into what we’ll be talking about at that work session. We’ll be talking about not only the river crossing but what we call the CSAH, which is a County Highway 61 project so that’s Hennepin and Carver County. The City Council has given working approvals for the design on that. The Hennepin County project will start actually in 2015. We’ll have the bridge so we’ve got a lot of work going on down there. In addition we’ll give you an update on, we are in process with our consultants for the land use planning. We have a neighborhood meeting coming up in Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 18, 2014 7 May and we’ll give you the dates on that so we hope that come of you can attend on that. And also SEH so we’ll give you an overview of what we’re doing there and your involvement in that process but a lot of changes in the southern end of the city so. So with that, then we also have a subdivision that we have noticed so that will be on at 7:00 so wherever we are on that process as we get towards the 7:00 hour we’ll break. Come in here. We do anticipate probably some neighbors from the, this subdivision abuts Shorewood. That will be in for that meeting and then when that ends we’ll adjourn the meeting. Excuse me, somewhere in there we’ll give oath of office so we’re legit and then we’ll go back and finish up the work session after that so we’ll kind of see how that meeting shakes out. We also did get a couple more applications in. Arbor Cove which is located on Dogwood, Lake Minnewashta. It’s a 4 lot subdivision. The other projects that were on that list did not come in except for the Sinclair subdivision and site plan. That’s Ivan Sinclair which will be another commercial use at that intersection. Camp Tanadoona, we’ve been working with them and they’re making some minor changes so we’re going to take them through the administrative process but I’ll give you an update on that when they’re ready to kind of pull permits on that. They’re redoing some of their buildings out there so, so they’re going out to bid on that pretty soon but I will give you an update when I have more details on that project in and of itself and maybe I’ll do that at our next work session. So with that Chair, Planning Commissioners, that’s all I had. If there’s any questions I’d be happy. Aller: Any other questions. Okay, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Weick seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES APRIL 1, 2014 FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 6:00 P.M. – WORK SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Mark Undestad and Maryam Yusuf. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Aller and Steve Weick. STAFF PRESENT Kate Aanenson, Alyson Fauske, Bob Generous, Terry Jeffery and Sharmeen Al-Jaff. PUBLIC PRESENT: None WORK SESSION 1. New Regulations for Stormwater Management. Terry Jeffery presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation on this item. He noted that the City has four separate watershed districts within it boundary and must meet each watershed district requirements. Terry discussed the proposed rules; the relationship of these rules to our existing local controls; staff’s current comments on the rules revision; and to take feedback from the Planning Commission. The work session was recessed until 8:30 p.m. to permit the regular Planning Commission meeting. 2. 2013 year-end review. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report. She briefly went over the number of cases that the Planning Commission reviewed, pointed out the number of residential building permits the city issued, provided historical data regarding residential building permit activity, reviewed the historical information on residential subdivisions and development, provided data on commercial and industrial development, and highlighted Chanhassen Population estimates and projections as well as the revised Metropolitan Council 2040 population estimate. Finally, the 2014 Planning Department goals and projects were outlined as well as discussion of the Planning Commission work projects for 2014. 3. Highway 101/61 Corridor Utility Study Update Kate Aanenson presented the staff report. She advised the Planning Commission that the City had hired a consultant to review the Minnesota Valley corridor to look at the feasibility and type of development within the corridor. The review process is scheduled for completion by the end 2 of August and that an open house is scheduled for May to talk with property owners and other stakeholders about the study and the infrastructure improvements that will be done. The Planning Commission will serve as a filter and review body for any potential changes within the corridor. 4. Code amendments – Next Generation Housing Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented a brief overview of what this type of housing entails. It was pointed out that city code currently doesn’t permit this type of housing, but only allows the use as a single-family home through a variance process and that in that instance it is on a temporary basis and specific to use for relatives only. There is no current plans to bring forward the Next Generation housing as a code amendment, but it is an issue that the City may want to investigate to develop policies or criteria as to when this type of housing would be appropriate. The work session ended at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Robert Generous CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES APRIL 1, 2014 Acting Chair Tennyson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Aller STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Laurie Sacchet 6175 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood Jacqui & Craig Kouba 3520 Highway 7, Excelsior Wade Navratil 3751 West 62nd Street, Excelsior Jason & Leah Schneider 26420 62nd Street West, Excelsior Ryan Johanson 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood Mark Diedi 16996 Hanover Lane, Eden Prairie Dan Peso 6125 Church Road, Excelsior OATH OF OFFICE: Mark Undestad recited the Oath of Office for Planning Commissioner. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded to approve the Planning Commission Bylaws as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BOULDER COVE – PLANNING CASE 2014-09: 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) AND LOCATED AT 3670 HIGHWAY 7. APPLICANT: LENNAR CORPORATION. PROPERTY OWNER: PREMIER BANK. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on planning and zoning issues and Alyson Fauske presented issues related to traffic and drainage. Commissioner Undestad asked for clarification on when the soil borings were taken, existing drain tile in the area and traffic study. Acting Chair Tennyson asked for clarification on the differences between the 2006 and current Lennar proposals, conditions related to the road configuration and possible stop sign, and noted that the variance is for the length of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Hokkanen questioned the timing of the traffic study, the developer being able to meet all the conditions in the staff report, and the variance for the cul-de-sac length. Commissioner Weick asked for clarification on the connection with the two properties to the east of this development. The applicant, Joe Jablonski with Lennar US Home Corporation at 16305 36th Avenue North, Suite 600, Plymouth, Minnesota, discussed background information as to the design of this proposal, asked that conditions related to the two single family properties to the east be removed, geotechnical issues regarding ground water, and traffic. Acting Chair Tennyson opened the public hearing. Laurie Sacchet, 6175 Strawberry Planning Commission Summary – April 1, 2014 2 Lane invited anyone to be at her house between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. to witness the bus and car traffic, expressed concerns with additional traffic and the access point being in a poor location. Leah Schneider, 26420 West 62nd Street,which is directly across the street from the entrance, expressed safety concerns with traffic and noted that she hadn’t heard anything being done to address drainage on the north side of the development explaining that their sump pump runs all year long. Jason Schneider, 26420 West 62nd Street, having been a Chanhassen fireman for 22 years and seen a lot of accidents, requested that there be an entrance off of Highway 7 during construction. Ryan Johanson, 6070 Strawberry Lane, understanding this is a unique situation with development occurring at the intersection of Shorewood and Chanhassen, explained that he’s not opposed to development but wants to see development done the right way which addresses safety issues associated with roads in this area. He also had concern with the next gen homes explaining his feeling that this project is premature until they know if next gen homes will be allowed, and a traffic and watershed study done. Mark Diede, 16996 Hanover Lane, Eden Prairie explained that because of open enrollment he drives his kids to school and expressed safety concerns with children walking on West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane to get to school and asked that those concerns with the road be addressed before allowing more houses into the area. He also asked that the City Council see a plat with a 800 foot cul-de-sac. Wade Navratil, 3751 West 62nd Street concurred with his neighbors that this development is premature without a traffic study, noted that the proposed entrance conflicts with a row of cedars, and drainage concerns. Dan Peso, 6125 Church Road,having a first grader and daughter who will be in kindergarten in 2 years, also expressed traffic concerns and asked if stop lights are planned for the Church Road and Highway 7 intersection. Jason Schneider returned to talked about accidents at Highway 7 and Church Road and explained his existing water issues noting that he can’t have any more water problems. Acting Chair Tennyson closed the public hearing. After questions and comments from commission members, the following motion was made. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve 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 and Recommendation: 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 Planning Commission Summary – April 1, 2014 3 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: 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. Planning Commission Summary – April 1, 2014 4 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.The “Next Generation” homes are not permitted under the 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. Planning Commission Summary – April 1, 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. Planning Commission Summary – April 1, 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 except for Weick and the motion carried 4 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 18, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided an update on planning issues from the March 24th City Council meeting and discussed future agenda items. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 1, 2014 Acting Chair Tennyson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, and Steven Weick MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Aller STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Laurie Sacchet 6175 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood Jacqui & Craig Kouba 3520 Highway 7, Excelsior Wade Navratil 3751 West 62nd Street, Excelsior Jason & Leah Schneider 26420 62nd Street West, Excelsior Ryan Johanson 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood Mark Diede 16996 Hanover Lane, Eden Prairie Dan Peso 6125 Church Road, Excelsior OATH OF OFFICE: Mark Undestad recited the Oath of Office for Planning Commissioner. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS. Tennyson: I understand this is something we do annually. Aanenson: Yes, thank you Chair. This is an annual approval. Sometimes in the past we’ve adjusted dates and times but at this time I don’t see any reason to change anything so if you want to just take, if anybody wants to make a motion or make any comments or amendments that’d be fine. Otherwise you can just recommend approval with a second. Tennyson: Any comments? Weick: None. Tennyson: Can I have a motion? Hokkanen: I move to approve the Bylaws of the Chanhassen Planning Commission for the City of Chanhassen. Tennyson: Second? Yusuf: Second. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded to approve the Planning Commission Bylaws as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 2 PUBLIC HEARING: BOULDER COVE – PLANNING CASE 2014-09: 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) AND LOCATED AT 3670 HIGHWAY 7. APPLICANT: LENNAR CORPORATION. PROPERTY OWNER: PREMIER BANK. Al-Jaff: Chairwoman Tennyson, members of the Planning Commission. Just briefly the site is located north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62nd Street. Some of the basics of the site that need to be pointed out. There used to be a landscape business on this site for a number of years and you will notice that there are some existing trees, primarily the ones that are located around the perimeter of the site. The intention is to save the majority of those. Also you will notice that there are boulders scattered throughout the site. Those will be utilized as part of the landscaping for this development. Currently there are 4 access points. The, off of Highway 7. The access points that are the most westerly, the two most westerly, those two will be closed off with this proposed development. The access points that are to the east, the two to the east, those are private. Those are private property that the applicant has attempted to contact to see if they would be interested in having a private street and closing off their access off of 7. The property owner to the far east has indicated that at this time they are not interested and the applicant has not been able to connect with the property immediately to the east of the subject site. The intent is at some point in the future is to have this private street available to them and currently there is a cul-de-sac bubble that actually connects to the property that’s immediately to the east of the subject site so access is available. The 2030 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as low density residential and the zoning of the site is mixed low and medium density. With that type of zoning and with the land use, one of the applications that had appeared before the City in 2006 and was actually approved was a request to put in single family homes, duplexes as well as three-plexes for a total number of units of 39. The application was approved and up til 2012 they requested extensions and the City granted those extensions until 2012 we said we need to look at other development options. Also there were a few ordinances that had been amended so we wanted to insure that the application complies with current ordinances and that’s why it was allowed to lapse. So with that said, now we have an application before us that is looking at 31 single family homes to be placed on these 13.38 acres and 3 outlots. The outlots will contain ponds as well as a totlot and a third outlot will have a sign identifying the development. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.32 units per acre. The net density is 3.99 units per acre. Under the low density designation you can have up to 4 units per acre so they are within the low density development guidelines. All lots within this development meet the minimum area, depth, width requirements of the zoning ordinance. One of the things that we asked the applicant to provide us with was the type of homes that they intend to build in this development. They gave us a number of samples and one of them was a product that is labeled next generation. It’s a home within a home. Under the City ordinances and the definitions within our code, these units would be classified as a two family home. In cases such as these, our city code requires a variance to be granted for such use and it’s specific to a certain individual. Typically it’s an elderly and it’s on a temporary basis. Right now we are evaluating this ordinance and looking at it in more depth. As proposed by the applicant we cannot approve such a unit so at this time they will not be allowed to have these units within this development. And however the city code is amended, if it was amended they would have to meet the guidelines and regulations that are set by the City. Okay? Other than that the, there is a variance attached to this application and that deals with the length of the cul-de-sac. The city code requires a minimum length, a maximum length for a cul- de-sac of 800 feet. This cul-de-sac has total length of 1,200 feet. Staff is recommending approval of this cul-de-sac for safety reasons because it will eliminate access points off of Highway 7. At this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson, Assistant City Engineer to address. Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Planning Commissioners, it’s my pleasure this evening to talk to you a little bit about some of the background work that’s gone into this development proposal. One thing that Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 3 we wanted to discuss and give the commission some background is on the Highway 7 corridor as it exists today. This exhibit which is also included on page 6 of the report, of the staff report shows some of the development work that’s occurred within this corridor within the last 10 years. It also indicates where access points exist within the corridor so moving west to east there is, there used to be an access point here on Pipewood Curve. Due to sight distances, when the Hidden Creek development was developed over to the east, that access, the old Pipewood Curve access was, the old Pipewood Curve access was closed and a new one was constructed on Highway 7 so that was, that was MnDOT’s way of improving the corridor by providing a better intersection with better sight distances. As we move further along to the east there’s Hidden Creek Meadows which did not have a new access to Highway 7. The Boulder Cove development, which is before you this evening, and then on the very eastern part of the exhibit shown here is Boyer Lake Minnewashta which constructed, extended streets through the existing local sys tem. So the Highway 7 corridor, it is govern by MnDOT and MnDOT when they look at providing an access for development if there’s, they look at the corridor. The sight distances and if there’s a viable access from a street system other than the state highway they say you need to get your access from the local street system and not from the state highway. That being said we wanted to discuss some of the concerns that have come up with some of the traffic in the area. This is also in the staff report on page 7 and the Boulder Cove site is indicated for the area shown with the red star there and the path outlined in purple indicates a route that is taken by some to drop the children off, either passenger vehicles or buses to Minnewashta Elementary school on the north side of Smithtown Road. Church Road is a Chanhassen city street. It is 31 feet wide. That is the city standard for a local street. West 62nd Street, the south half lies within the city of Chanhassen. The north half is within the city of Shorewood. That street is 22 feet wide as is Strawberry Lane which is a city of Shorewood street. Staff did meet with the City of Shorewood to discuss this development proposal. They are aware of resident concerns with the traffic in the area as well as pedestrian traffic and they’re starting to look at the corridor, ultimately what would happen with the street widths. Their standard they indicated to us was 24 feet so 2 foot widening. Narrower than the Chanhassen standard. They were also going to take a look at the trail system requirements within this area but they don’t have it identified currently in their capital improvement plan. They anticipate it might be 5 to 10 years out. So any improvements within the corridor, particularly as the City of Chanhassen is concerned with West 62nd Street, we would do a joint venture with the City of Shorewood because for Chanhassen to go ahead and look at improving half of one street, it doesn’t make sense. We need to be working with Shorewood to do that and they’re starting their process internally and then they’ll come back to Chanhassen and say this is what we anticipate seeing within the corridor and then Chanhassen will start looking at our street system and how that affects us. One of the things that we also talked about with the City of Shorewood is the existing intersection between Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street is a curve. As indicated in this exhibit there’s a curve here so there’s no stop condition for those that are traveling on West 62nd Street up to Strawberry Lane and Shorewood, when we had our discussion with them there was a discussion about making that a T intersection so that the proposed street within the Lennar development would T up with 62nd Street. Since it came up so late in the review process and since we’re also waiting for Shorewood to give us some direction as far as where they ultimately anticipate Strawberry Lane lying within the right-of-way, where ultimately they anticipate having a sidewalk. Whether it be on the west side or the east side. Those are things that we need to have clear direction on before we give the developer’s engineer the go ahead to start taking a look at how that intersection could be reconstructed to a T intersection and that’s why we don’t have that shown for you this evening. As part of that analysis we’ve directed the developer to get a traffic engineer to take a look at whether a T intersection at that location would warrant a stop condition. There are recommendations and guidelines when to use a stop condition and so we rely on a traffic engineer to provide us with that information and that recommendation and part of that process would get, would be to get traffic counts in the area. Traffic counts, Chanhassen, neither Chanhassen nor Shorewood have any traffic data in this area. The reason being is that traffic count data is taken on a state aid route and neither of these streets are a state aid route in the Chanhassen or the Shorewood system so we want to get an indication of what the vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic is in the area and then the traffic engineer can use that in his or her analysis of the intersection to see if a stop sign is warranted. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 4 The other thing that we wanted to talk to you a little bit about this evening is the traffic generation. I wanted to provide an analysis of what was proposed back in the 2006 development. This is also shown on page 8 of your staff report. The current proposal is the Lennar 31 single family homes. In my analysis I just included the two single family homes just to show an ultimate development pattern should those two homes connect to the cul-de-sac and then I compared that to the 2006 development proposal which also included those 2 single family. The difference in the total daily trips, because single family homes generate higher traffic per unit than a twinhome or townhome so we did see an increase in the total daily trips as well as the a.m. and p.m. peak trips and the a.m. and p.m. peak trips are what traffic engineers will look at when looking at like for example here where it’s a school corridor where there’s buses so they look at the peak a.m. and p.m. trips in their analysis. So an increase of 6 1/2 trips in the morning and 10.8 trips in the evening. Statistically it’s, we don’t have a number of the existing counts through the street system there but it’s, we’ll have a better idea of what that number is when we get the traffic counts through the area. It’s to provide more guidance. One of the other items that we wanted to bring to the Planning Commission and to the public’s, to educate the Planning Commission and the public about some of the surface drainage because there are some surface and ground water drainage concerns that have been brought to our attention. The map shown on the west side, on the left side of the screen here is the existing drainage area map and it’s color coded to give you an indication of where the site drains to. The area in yellow goes to the north. The area in the green goes to the west and the area in pink goes to the south to the MnDOT right-of-way. So the proposed drainage system is shown on the right hand side of the screen with the yellow area going to the north so they’ve decreased the area that’s directly discharging to the north. The area in purple goes to a filtration system that they’re proposing to build on site that ultimately would drain to their stormwater pond which is located in the area shown in blue. And then ultimately discharging to the right-of-way. They would have to work, the applicant would be required to work with MnDOT for a drainage permit because they would be draining to the Highway 7 right-of-way. And one of the other things that was examined quite extensively several years ago when the first development proposal came in and we’ve been talking about it again this time around is ground water. The City is aware of a few residents to the west of this site that have sump pumps quite a bit and water intrusion so we wanted to identify that with the 2006 proposal which after an analysis done both by the applicant and by Barr Engineering, the final recommendation was to include a draintile system just to, just to the west side of the proposed pond here in Outlot A in the south corner of the site. And the intent there is to provide some mechanism to attempt to drain some of that ground water out of saturated soils and get it into the MnDOT right-of-way to help alleviate some of the drainage issues with some of the folks to the west. One of the other things that staff has been working with the applicant on is the ground water elevation that was encountered in one of the soil borings. The area, the dots shown in green indicates some of the soil borings that were taken on the site back in 2005, which was a wet year. And then the two locations shown in orange are some piezometers that Lennar’s soil engineer has installed to monitor some ground water elevations. The area that we’ve been talking to the developer about is right here in this area of Outlot A. The soil boring did show a higher ground water elevation than what the anticipated normal water level is in the, the designed normal water level is in the pond at this location so we’re working with them to get some more data to see if, if the ground water elevation observed in 2005 was simply because you’ve dug a hole in the ground and the saturated soils just drained into that hole. 2005 was a wet year. Or if there is a sand lens in there that is carrying some water and so we want to try to get an idea of what’s happening there. What’s, from an engineering standpoint what’s the best solution to this? And in this case it affects the design of the stormwater pond. It’s not an indication of putting more ground water, you know re-saturating the ground water. It’s a question about the design of the storm pond so we’re going to continue working with the applicant on that to get that issue resolved. Al-Jaff: Just wanted to add that the applicant has held a neighborhood meeting. That meeting notice was posted on the City’s website. Also there has been a sign on the site for almost a month indicating that there is proposed development on this site, as well as public hearing notices that went to people within 500 feet as required by city code. With that said we are recommending approval of the Boulder Cove Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 5 subdivision with a variance for the length of the cul-de-sac and we are recommending the Planning Commission adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation that are attached to your staff report and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Tennyson: Do you have any questions? Undestad: Yeah, a couple here. I guess, I’ll go over to Alyson first. So the soil borings they have are from 2005? Fauske: Yes that’s correct and then they did some additional soils investigation with the Lennar proposal. Undestad: Okay, so more current borings that they’ve done out there? Fauske: More current borings but when we looked at the ground water elevations, when we have a soil boring taken at some point in time that showed an elevated ground water condition, we want to do our due diligence to make sure that, was it an anomaly because of the wet season that preceded that or is that really where this ground water is sitting at, at that location. Undestad: So and their new soil borings? Fauske: They had a new one, they did a new piezometer installation just to the north of that but when we start graphing where, there’s like a sandy, silty sand layer that’s between two clay layers which tends to move the water through so we want to get an idea within that Outlot A where that pond is, where is the ground water normally at at that location? Is it, is it below the normal water level? We’re okay or is it above that normal water level where it’s actually now feeding into the stormwater pond and affecting the removal efficiencies of that pond. Undestad: Okay. Then you mentioned about the drain tiles too that I read somewhere there might be some existing drain tiles in the area? Fauske: Correct. Undestad: Do we know about any of those or? Fauske: We did get some back in 2006 one of the residents did give us some information with some of the existing drain tile that he knew of in the location and they, the developer is proposing quite a bit of storm sewer in the rear yards throughout this development so any drain tile encountered would be connected. Investigated and connected where possible. Undestad: Okay. And then the last one, the traffic study that is going to happen or? Fauske: An analysis. Undestad: I mean it’s giving you more information. Fauske: Correct. More information will be coming forward. Undestad: So would that, the potential of that traffic study, when that is done, would that potentially have an impact as to the number of trips versus the number of lots and homes and whether or not it’s a stop situation at that intersection? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 6 Fauske: To answer your question about the trip generation. The trip generation that’s included in the staff report is, it’s based on empirical data that’s been monitored so as far as the estimated trips, we don’t anticipate that that would change. What we’re looking at from a traffic engineer is to go ahead and get vehicular traffic counts as well as pedestrian traffic counts. Take a look at what the ultimate design of that intersection will be by T’ing it up. Is a stop condition warranted? And if so, what are the impacts that would happen? Any delays on West 62nd Street. That east/west street as a result of that traffic, of a stop condition. Undestad: So that traffic study wouldn’t necessarily go right back to say okay, 25 lots are you know, for traffic control. Fauske: It’s an existing condition where you have a lot of vehicles traveling to the school in the morning and in the afternoon so it’s, taking a look at what’s existing right there and what can be done now to help alleviate that and to make it, where the proposed street connection is a safe connection. Undestad: Okay. Tennyson: And there are a number of conditions already in the report. Are these, it sounds like these new investigations related to the stop sign and the possible change in the curve, all of that, those are additional conditions? Fauske: Correct. Tennyson: And they’re included? Fauske: Correct. Tennyson: Okay. And just so, for purposes of review, the 2006 proposal was very similar. It was more, it was a higher number of units with one outlot and maybe this is more for Sharmeen. And now it is fewer housing units with 3 outlots. Al-Jaff: Correct. Tennyson: And a variance. There’s one variance. It’s not related to this proposed dual housing kind of situation. It’s just about the cul-de-sac. Al-Jaff: Correct. Tennyson: Okay. Thank you. Al-Jaff: Which was also a variance with the original proposal. Tennyson: Okay. Al-Jaff: Same length cul-de-sac. Tennyson: Anybody else? Hokkanen: I have the same question. Maybe the applicant can address whether they can meet all these conditions because I have questions about, similar questions with the drainage and the traffic. I mean should we have had the traffic study first? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 7 Fauske: Ultimately that’s what we would have desired and the applicant I think would echo that. That sentiment. Unfortunately the discussions and trying to get into the same room with the City of Shorewood didn’t happen until the applicant had made their application and given the fact that Shorewood is now taking a step back so to speak and taking a look at the Strawberry Lane/West 62nd corridor in it’s entirety and ultimately what they want to do with that, we felt that the details of that T intersection and the stop condition, it’s not generated by the addition of these 32 single family homes. It’s, there’s an existing traffic, the existing traffic out there is already, it’s already there. Hokkanen: It’s already in now. Fauske: So with the new street connection there, what’s the best way to approach this? What’s the best geometric intersection? Geometry of the intersection and what are the impacts of that? Hokkanen: Okay. Weick: Would the, the two existing properties to the east, it looked like in one of the pictures that if the homeowner to the far east chooses to be connected to the cul-de-sac, which it sounds like that’s a choice. There would be, it looks like a new driveway that would cut across the neighbor’s property? Is that how that works? Fauske: There’s currently in place. Thank you Sharmeen. Weick: Down here. Well this is a home though right? Fauske: Correct. Hokkanen: So with the far east one. Weick: How would the far east connect to the cul-de-sac? Fauske: This area dashed out right here, there’s currently an easement for a private street. Weick: There is? Okay. Fauske: Yes. So that was put in place, it actually preceded the 2006 application is when that easement was put in place is my understanding. That would provide the eastern most single family home access to the local street. Weick: And that would not extend the length of the cul-de-sac correct? That’d be considered? Fauske: That would be considered a private street and would have to go through an approval process at that time. If the western, if this property that’s currently adjacent to the cul-de-sac right-of-way wanted to make the connection to the cul-de-sac, it would be considered at that point a driveway. Weick: Okay. Fauske: It’s when you have two homes where it’s a private street. Weick: Yep. Okay. Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 8 Hokkanen: I have one more question. The length of the street for the variance for the cul-de-sac. How long? I can’t remember what it was. Fauske: They’re proposing 1,200 feet and the city code limits it to 800. The reason staff is supporting that, and thank you for bringing that up. I should have mentioned that in the review, is the geometrics of the site, as it goes, and it’s only frontage to public street is on the very northwestern corner. It extends you know further to the east here. A connection to Highway 7 is not possible. Looking to the west here, a street connection through here, ultimately redevelopment of this area it’s, would a street connection through here really serve a great purpose? That’s questionable so as staff we supported the street, the cul- de-sac length variance because of the geometrics of the site and the fact that we’re removing some access points off of Highway 7. Hokkanen: And not to put you on the spot but Highcrest Meadows. We did longer cul-de-sac in there. Do we know how long? Do you remember? Fauske: Highcrest Meadows, if I’m correct preceded the cul-de-sac, maximum cul-de-sac length did it not? Aanenson: Correct. I think some of those might have been closer to 1,200, 1,100. But I think there’s some places where based on topography like Settlers West where it’s only possible servicing. And we did look at, or at least engineering looked at every possible alternative including connecting to Church Street and what that would do to traffic as Alyson had already stated coming up off of Highway 7 and potential back-up’s that way too. Hokkanen: Thank you. Weick: And as a point of clarification, there are no variances for lot sizes correct? They fall within the. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Weick: The guidelines. Al-Jaff: Yes they do. Weick: Acreage per lot. Okay. Tennyson: Okay. With that we’ll close this portion of the meeting and open the public hearing. Aanenson: We may, you might want to ask the applicant first and then maybe we could. Tennyson: Certainly. Would the developer like to come forward and state your name and address for the record please. Joe Jablonski: Good evening Madam Chair. Members of the commission. My name is Joe Jablonski. I’m representing Lennar US Home Corporation at 16305 36th Avenue North, Suite 600 in Plymouth, Minnesota. I appreciate staff’s presentation. They did a good job kind of laying out the background of the site. Obviously our general site planning hasn’t changed a great deal from what was approved before. The big reason behind that really is constraints of what you can do with it. It’s fairly oddly shaped. You’re locked in by Highway 7 and existing neighborhoods. One of the considerations on the length of the cul-de-sac too to take into account is, you know we could have potentially shorten it and wrapped homes around the back of it but that would have also severed the opportunity for the two eastern parcels Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 9 to at some point connect because part of this, as I understand is that MnDOT is really eager to get the access points eliminated along that corridor and by not having the length of the cul-de-sac it would make it that much more difficult to do that, which is why we had followed the previous precedent set there. There are a few of the other things that I wanted to kind of elaborate on a little bit. There’s a number of conditions in here that as staff had gone through their presentation kind of noted that have potentially changed and they were related to the elimination of the access points on, it would be condition number f, g, h and i. Maybe not g but f, h, i and k actually is the other one and those were all related to the two eastern parcels and how connections were made to those under the previous proposal. They were kind of part of the plat. Under our proposal they are not so we’re not asking them to provide easements. The easement that Alyson mentioned actually was not ever recorded so there’s not a driveway easement across the western property to the eastern property. It was prepared but it was never recorded so we would prefer to keep all that kind of out of here so, and I think staff acknowledged that in conversations earlier that those items could be removed or. To get into a little bit more of the geotechnical things and some of the ground water that the Assistant City Engineer mentioned. We have gone out and done additional testing and data collection knowing that it’s something that we wanted to understand as well. Just to maybe give a little bit more background. Our analysis has shown that typical ground water in the area would be Lake Minnewashta which is approximately 20 feet below this site. There are potential for veins of other ground water but the actual water table based on our geotechnical recommendation is that Lake Minnewashta area. We have had additional conversations and we will continue to work with staff on that item. I think that we can get that addressed in a way that we’re comfortable with and staff will be comfortable with as well. Traffic. You know I think that Alyson was correct in saying that if the item had been presented to us early that we could have addressed the traffic concern. The concern isn’t that the amount of trips that the new project is going to generate as much as what’s there already and how you can maybe take a not very good situation and make it better. We’re willing to do that and help in that process knowing that if we weren’t doing anything in this area that that probably wouldn’t happen so it is an opportunity for you know some more data collection and we can support that and assist with that and I think that we can get that done fairly quickly. I don’t know how much data you want to collect or how long you want the data collection to occur but we can, we should be able to get that lined up and done pretty quick I think. Other than that I’d be more than happy to answer any questions if you have anything else that you would like to discuss with me or anyone from back? Tennyson: Does anyone have any questions for the developer? Weick: Assuming that, and we touched on it briefly before but the entrance to the subdivision. I’m assuming because of what’s around this property that that’s really it, right? As far as street access and all that kind of stuff. Joe Jablonski: It is and I think the Assistant City Engineer will also attest to the fact that you try to line roads up as much as you can. Putting an extra access point somewhere else really doesn’t work. The only other place would be through onto Church Street through a small connection point but there again then you have to potentially deal with back up’s on Church. And there’s just not, because of the existing houses there it’s just very difficult to get through there and MnDOT obviously wants elimination of points on Highway 7 so the whole north boundary, everything east of where Strawberry Court and 62nd, the entrance to the neighborhood is already developed and has homes on it so there’s no opportunity there. So it is pretty close to locked in. We can work with more of a T arrangement or rearrange it but the general area there is kind of where it’s got to be. Tennyson: Anyone else? With that we’ll open the public hearing. Laurie Sacchet: Well thank you very much Planning Commission. My name’s Laurie Sacchet. I’m at 6175 Strawberry Lane. Approximately 3 homes away from the entrance. Just like to invite any of you to Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 10 be at my house at between 7:00 and 8:00 in the morning and see 3 large buses sitting there with you know 10 cars waiting to get through and the reality of living in a 22 foot Strawberry Lane. You know it’s a country area back there and I think speaking on behalf of my neighbors, having 60 plus vehicles you know coming through there, considering everybody might have 1 or 2 cars is a really serious concern. The street isn’t designed for that at all. Or 62nd Street. Right now cars kind of whip around there as it is and there’s really not room for 2 so you know it’s amazing there haven’t been more collisions there but you know people slow down so just the reality is that that access point is, in reality a very, very poor choice. The angle of it and everything about it so maybe a miracle can change that but the other option of adding one on Church Street would alleviate a tremendous situation and share some of the load and if that possibility exists I would strongly encourage that that be looked at because right now it’s inviting a mess in that area with the number of children living there. I don’t have any. All of my neighbors do. There are no sidewalks. There are no stop signs. It’s rural. So anyway 10 years is an awful long time to wait on something like that so thank you for considering all that. Tennyson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Leah Schneider: My name is Leah Schneider. I live on 26420 West 62nd Street. I’m directly across the street from the proposed entrance. My husband’s a Chanhassen fire fighter. He’s here as well so he frequents Strawberry and West 62nd and understands the safety concerns that we have. My kids who are also here, since it’s spring break and we don’t have a sitter, ride the bus every morning and I stand in the driveway and watch them go to the bus stop because it is extremely traffic laden in the morning and I think that was noted in some of the, well I guess the empirical data but not, not like no traffic study has been done I guess to this point. And this isn’t new information. This is something that we brought up in 2006 and we are the same owners so I still have this concern. I can speak, people whip around that corner pretty fast. This winter it’s been a bad winter, I’ll give you that but our neighbors have actually had about I think 4 or 5 cars run into their property on that turn so it’s very dangerous as is. I’m not confident a stop sign would help. It depends on where you put the stop sign but I do think that adding 31 or 62 new drivers, you know cars will impact it regardless of how you look at that and I do think it’s important to do a traffic study ahead of time before you start working on this because there is not, I walk on that road to go to the parks, the trail system, because all of those exits have been taken off of Highway 7, people use that as a through road to get back into Lake Minnetonka neighborhoods. Any road along Smithtown so it’s already pretty, there’s a lot of traffic going back there so I do think that would impact that, the traffic on that road. I also have concerns about drainage. I did see the proposal. I saw the ponds but my sump pump runs all year long and we have standing water if it rains and it’s, so I’m concerned. We’re actually on the north so it sounds like something’s going to be done to the west but I haven’t heard anything about the north side so that’s another concern of mine. And so I mean mainly for me it’s the traffic and the safety. Providing sidewalks or something. Improving the roads somehow. They’re just too narrow and school buses actually don’t take those corners. They have to stop if another car is coming around the corner. They have to completely stop and that happens pretty much every morning. So that’s pretty much it. Thanks. Tennyson: Thank you. Anyone else? Jason Schneider: I’m Jason. I’m Leah’s husband. I’ve been a Chanhassen fireman for 22 years. I have seen the redevelopment of Highway 7. All the closures of all our exits and entrances onto 7. Most calls I go to are not from those entrances or exits. They’re from people going too fast on Highway 7. Stuff like that so I guess what I’m proposing is a MnDOT access to this during construction. After that they can come onto our street. Our street is not prepared for this traffic. There is a lot of safety concerns. I’ve had 4 cars in my yard in the last month. We had development by the railroad and the dump trucks that go through there a day, I mean they’re done now but they were horrible and I even chased one of them down one day to slow him down. And I know Laurie’s significant other was with me. He was there and these Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 11 two roads are not able to handle this so as public safety I just, I know it’s going to happen. You know the development can go through but we can’t have that traffic on these two roads. It can’t be done. If my kid gets hit, I’ve seen a lot, I’m not going to, I can’t do this so. Yes, it is emotional because I do see a lot and this road is not prepared for this. I do want them to develop. I know it’s going to develop but we just need a different access to this development and that’s all I have. Tennyson: Thank you. Ryan Johanson: Madam Chair, commission, Lennar, thank you for letting us come here today to speak. Tennyson: Could you start with your name and address. Ryan Johanson: Yes. Ryan Johanson, 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota. Tennyson: Thank you. Ryan Johanson: I understand this is a unique situation because you have a development kind of going in at the intersection of two communities. Shorewood and Chanhassen so we’re here tonight obviously to talk to Chanhassen about what’s going on and speak our minds a little bit. We’re also doing that with Shorewood. We’ve talked to Shorewood. We’ve talked to Larry Brown. Brad Nielson. They know our concerns. We just kind of found out about this. I know it’s kind of hard to believe that members of Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane are kind of just finding out about this. There was rumors and rumblings in 2006. I built in 2003 and I don’t know if you can see. I’m just a few houses to the north of Leah and Jason on Strawberry Lane. There’s been a lot of development. Yeah you can kind of see. Where 62 and Strawberry yep, I’m just up there just a little bit on the left hand side up there so. There’s been a lot of development since I built in 2002. Around me within 500 feet of me there’s been 13 new homes in the last 10 years and that’s great. Development’s good. I had the privilege of sitting in the work session with you guys earlier and there was talk about preservation. Watershed. The balance between development and sustainability and I appreciate that you are looking at your community from that viewpoint and that’s necessary so we’re not as members of Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane opposed to development. We all built our homes. We needed homes to live in so development is a good thing. It just has to be done the right way and everybody has a chance to communicate and speak on this. The biggest issues we had and have, one was the next gen homes and my understanding is that’s off the table now. Those next gen homes are not going to be built or are you going to go forward with a potential code amendment and discuss that issue? Aanenson: The current ordinance doesn’t allow them. We are going to talk about potentially some code amendments. That doesn’t mean that every house in here could be next generation. We’re just talking about in general how we approach the variance allows for 2 homes in one dwelling so it’s not our intention to have every house in there go to next gen. We understand the traffic implications. That’s some of the things we’ll be talking about so. Ryan Johanson: Okay. Aanenson: And even if we did process something it would take a while to get through, to draft an ordinance. Go through the public hearing. There’s always a public hearing also on all code amendments and then the City Council would also have to approve that so it’s a little bit of a process. Ryan Johanson: Okay. And I understand that and that’s clear to me and that’s why I think this is premature. Approval of this plat without the traffic studies. Without the soil samples that we’ve been talking about. Without knowing if there are going to be next generation homes in this development, how Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 12 can we make an educated decision to pass approval onto the City Council? There’s no way you can do that because next gen homes do affect the traffic study. They do affect watershed. They do affect everything so not having those studies and that data in front of us, we can’t make informed decisions. This has been a proposed development since 2006. The original development, Roger Derek Cottage Homes that had an extension for like 6 years. He kept asking for extension, extension, extension. I understand the need for Lennar to, and Premier Bank to get this development conducted and to do it fast. But again like what I heard in the work session, let’s do it the right way. Let’s do it after we’ve had a chance to look at sustainability. To look at preservation. To look at all the data that we need and we really do need to know if there’s going to be code amendments that allow these types of homes because that’s going to increase a single unit from let’s say 2 parents and 2 kids. Potentially 2 parents, 2 kids. A renter. Maybe 2 renters. Maybe 2 college kids that are going to use this one bedroom, part of these next gen homes. That’s 2 cars for the 2 parents that own the home. Maybe a 16 year old lives in the house. 3 cars. 1 or 2 rents in that unit. 4 or 5 cars in that development. That is going to affect the traffic study that hasn’t been done yet. All these things are kind of built upon one another. We need to know if those codes are going, amendment’s going to go through. If next gen houses are going to be allowed and then the traffic study needs to be done because the way it is right now with access on 62nd and Strawberry Lane, like Leah and Jason said, like you said, it’s impossible. You guys talked about going out to sites in the work session program and how valuable that was. I know you’re busy. I know you have lives. I would ask that you go out before you make any decisions and look at that area. I just stopped over at Jason and Leah’s house on the way home from work to come here and I had to make a 10 point turn in my truck in that roadway just to go back to my house. It is narrow. It is rural. Does part of that lei with Shorewood? Definitely and that’s, we’re addressing that with Shorewood for road improvements to that road. I would suggest that if this development goes through, and if there is a T section there, that it is stopped and then with Shorewood we’re also asking that at the intersection of Shorewood and Strawberry Lane, there’s a stop sign. And then at the crossing where the trail goes through, that there is one. Currently where Church Road goes up to 62nd, there’s a stop sign there at Cathcart Parkway. There’s no stop signs until you get to Minnewashta school. None. So people go 45-50 miles an hour cruising down that road. There’s more development. Shorewood did development right by there, like I said 13 new homes including mine in the last 10 years so we can’t say one community can develop and one can’t but at an intersection like we’re talking about, we have to do it the right way. You have to make an informed decision so I think it’s premature to grant this. To approve this. To pass it onto City Council when there are so many questions. That’s with the next gen houses. I know I’m being long winded here but with the variance also requested for the cul-de-sac, it was 800 feet in 2006 when it got approved. Now it’s 1,200. 60% increase. Aanenson: …it was 1,200. Well the reason again it was extended out there is to accommodate, through no fault of the developer, which is why the staff supported it, is to accommodate those 2 extra driveways if in time in the future wanted to be. The developer could have shorten that up and got some different lot configurations in there. Ryan Johanson: That’s perfect and that’s again is if those 2 homes want to be part of it and that’s another question that we don’t know yet. Aanenson: But again yeah, well that’s good planning though to provide that opportunity. That would be short sighted not to provide that opportunity in the future. There have been deaths with people turning onto, making those turns on Highway 7. Alyson didn’t show on the south side but we also accommodated some removals on the south side. Pipewood, just on the other side of Landings. Minnewashta Landings, we took out streets on that side too there, so the staff is the one that requested the additional length on that one to make the cul-de-sac longer. I also just want to speak again about next generation. We’re just starting that discussion. That may, this development may be built out by the time Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 13 we move forward with that so the development as it comes in today, meeting city ordinance so it does meet and it cannot go forward with next generation as it is today. We don’t know what the timeline is for studying that. It came to us now. We just want to make sure that the council understands how we interpret it today. That’s why we’re having it in a work session. A discussion whether or not a cul-de-sac is even an appropriate place to put some of those so there’s a lot of discussion that goes on before we would say it’s not a rush to try to get something approved so they can accommodate them. That’s not our goal so. Ryan Johanson: Okay. Aanenson: I just want to separate those two. It came forward with this and we want to make sure the commission understands it and we’re more deliberate in how that would be applied and where it would be used in the city. Ryan Johanson: Okay, wonderful. And I just want to point out, if by chance you drive over there and you take a look at it, drive down 7 going west. Go up Church Road. Go down 62nd. Go on Strawberry Lane. That’s going to be access for these homes. Or before the two lots, before the two arrows, you can barely see it in the upper corner there. That’s Shorewood Oaks. The entrance to the Shorewood Oaks subdivision. It kind of wraps around like this and intersects with Strawberry. That’s going to be the other entrance for this development. They’re going to go up Shorewood Oaks. Go down Strawberry Lane and go right to the top of the development. These are residential, single family residential homes on mainly acre lots. Tree preservation policy in Shorewood mirrors and mimics the one in Chanhassen. They love big trees. The Comprehensive Plan for Shorewood is large lots, single family homes, lots of tree coverage. Almost every single family in Shorewood Oaks and on Strawberry Lane have multiple children. 2-3 children. You drive your car through there, there’s kids playing in the street. In their, not in the street I hope. In their front yards, all that kind of stuff. Diverting now 62 to 120 new vehicles through those side, small streets is going to be a huge impact and we talked about safety several times. A huge safety implication. I just think when you look at every single possible scenario, and like you said we’re not trying to push this through fast but look at everything before we make any judgments. Any decisions. If there is a way to have an access on Church Road, that cuts that variance for that cul-de-sac down and it cuts a lot of traffic from being diverted through all these subdivisions. Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane. Go down 7. Go up Church Road right into here. I haven’t heard any good argument yet on why that’s not feasible. Why that’s not possible so I would just say thank you for letting me speak and just really make sure we have all of the information we need before we make any decisions. Tennyson: Thank you. Aanenson: I’d just like to address the Church Road issue, and maybe Alyson wants to comment on it too. The developer themselves looked at that as an opportunity as did the City and there was no property willing to, that could be acquired or accommodated for this development. We did try to take that approach and it was explored at a considerable length of time and that was eliminated as a possibility so that was explored. Tennyson: Thanks for the explanation. That does help. Anybody else? Mark Diede: My name is Mark Diede, 16996 Hanover Lane in Eden Prairie. You might wonder why Eden Prairie. Well like they said. A lot’s changed since 2006 with open enrollment in the schools and we’re one of the people that drive by their houses each day. We open enrolled at Minnetonka schools because you know what, you know they’ve just, it’s been tremendous so the issue there is it’s, I’ve said my concerns to the principal and the Shorewood City Council saying 62nd and Strawberry Lane, there’s kids walking on snow banks trying to get to school every day. It’s horrible with you know, you’re driving Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 14 on that and like I said, people are going 45 down, it’s very dangerous. And ironically we, the State requires that if you live within a half mile you have to pay money to take the bus so you’d think that they would provide safety on very busy roads through, with sidewalks and whatever that are around schools so that’s, this is a touchy subject because it’s kind of Shorewood and it’s Chanhassen and it’s, so that’s one aspect of it. So what I’d like to see before, you know obviously the traffic patterns now, today during school sessions of course. Not during spring breaks, etc, to see what’s the proposed streets for 62nd and Strawberry Lane. What are they going to do? They’re going to make it, instead of a rural, those two are rural roads. Are they going to make it bigger with sidewalks, street lights, stop signs, whatever. I think that has to be done before you put, it’s truly a medium density housing when you figure in all the houses going in there so I think those two plans have to be decided between Chanhassen and Shorewood to say what’s the future, but can’t wait 5 to 10 years. That has to be done before any more homes are done in there. The second thing, beyond those two. Beyond that plat is to show a plat of what it looks like for the City Council to see an 800 foot cul-de-sac. There’s no reason why it can’t be done. You can just extend that private drive out more to those houses. You know they might have a 200-300 foot driveway but so be it. Everything’s still fine and I just think that they should see the options. That’s the legal option. What the builder can do so why not give them that option. I know you guys probably want to force, you know give them your best choice but I would think that they should see some other configurations of that. That plat. Beyond those two things, I mean obviously you know half acre lots would be ideal you know for the density around the area so, anyway thanks. Tennyson: Thank you. I see someone else. Wade Navratil: Hello. I’m Wade Navratil. I live at 3751 West 62nd Street. I’m in the property just west of the proposed development right there. The house. I echo everything that my neighbors say to the north. Absolutely. I think it would be premature to do this without a traffic study. I think it’d be, you really need to look at that entrance into Strawberry Lane because there is a row of cedars there that if you don’t put a stop sign there, you are really asking for a lot of trouble because it is very hard to get onto West 62nd Street right now. I should know, I’m the only driveway on the south side so you know I’ve got to come out of cedars every day to look out there. And then you know my other concern is drainage. If they’re going to raise it up and put 6 to 8 lots along that western border, you know how high are they going to raise it up and then it’s going to end up in my lot. And I know there’s talk about doing you know French tiles there. French drains and stuff but you know I echo my neighbors to the north. My pumps run 24/7, 365. Trouble with them freezing up you know at this time of the year. So there is a lot of ground water out there that needs to be accounted for and it’s very flat so, you know can say it kind of drains this way but it’s very flat and it sits out there. But those are you know the big concerns. I think there does need to be a traffic study handled for that. School buses can’t go down there. We all agree to that. There’s no place for the kids to walk. And actually has anybody talked to the school and are they going to change the school bus stops because right now the only stops are on Church. On Church and the corner of 62nd at Cathcart there. And at Church and I forget the road off to the west. I actually got a variance so my kids could walk across my neighbors yard so they wouldn’t have to walk down 62nd. So I had my kids being picked up off Church Road. I figured that road was a lot safer to cross. You know a lot clearer sight lines. A lot more open for them to cross to get picked up by the bus so has anybody even talked to the school district about bus pick-up if we’re going to put in 31 single family homes there for the safety of the children. Those would be my concerns. Thank you. Tennyson: Thank you. Dan Peso: Hi. My name’s Dan Peso. I live at 6125 Church Road and I just wanted to piggyback up what my neighbors had said. Concern for kids. I have a first grader and I have a daughter that will be entering in kindergarten in 2 years so just the traffic that will be coming down and just like no sidewalks and that 2 buses, they can’t fit on that road. And then the other thing I was kind of curious about was with the Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 15 addition of 31 new houses was that entrance from Church Road, taking a left onto Highway 7. That’s very difficult at all hours, especially in the afternoon but especially in the morning and I was just wondering if there’s any talk about stop light. Just something to try to help that out. I know further west on Highway 7 way out they’re putting roundabouts in but I don’t know if there’s anything to address that issue so thank you very much for your time. Tennyson: Thank you. I see someone standing. Fauske: Chair Tennyson? Tennyson: Yes. Fauske: If I may just to Mr. Peso’s question about the intersection of Church Road and Highway 7. We do communicate with MnDOT on probably an annual basis as far as taking a look at the Minnewashta Parkway intersection at both Highway 7 and Highway 5 every, it was every year and I think it still is every year and they keep coming back and saying that the counts, the traffic counts just aren’t high enough to do a signal at that location but we do communicate with them constantly about analyzing those intersections so I appreciate the question. Tennyson: Thank you. I see he’s coming back. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen. Jason Schneider: Say just to piggyback. Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway/Church Road is a problem. I get called a lot. I try to cross the highway to get to that station. Sometimes I sit there for over 5 minutes trying to get across Highway 7. That’s where a majority of our accidents are is Highway 7 and Church Road right now. You guys can probably have access to our sheets. That’s where we do get most of them. Also I walked across the road today to the proposed development area and there is standing water at ground level throughout the property. I live on the lowest lot area so I get the water and I just, I can’t get any more water. Some of our drain tile takes it. 10 years ago when you could do stuff I’ve actually taken little float pumps and pumped it across the road because I had a foot of water in my garage so water, the water issue for me is real. I have water problems. And I just wanted you guys, safety is number one. Our road isn’t for this. I know MnDOT probably could do something. You know even if you just take a right hand turn. All the time trucks pull in. They take a right hand. They’ve got to take a right hand to get out. I know it can be done. Our road is not made for the traffic that is proposed so that’s all I got. Thank you. Tennyson: Okay. Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing portion of the meeting and open this for discussion among the commissioners. Questions for staff. Undestad: I have a question for Alyson first. The construction entrance option, I mean dealing with MnDOT, is that something that’s possible to get the right-in/right-out just during construction? Fauske: That would be a MnDOT call and I think that that was something that the applicant has maybe perhaps had a discussion and can maybe answer that question. Tennyson: Can you answer that question? Joe Jablonski: Madam Chair, members of the commission. To address that specific question, we have applied for a construction permit off of MnDOT right-of-way. They’ve already told us and have told the City before that there’s not going to be a permanent access and we did this fairly recently and it will take them some time to review but we recognize that that’s probably a good idea for us as well. Whether or not they’re going to grant it, you know that’s not, it’s a little difficult to do and they don’t, from my Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 16 experience they don’t do it a lot but they may. But we have taken that step to at least apply for it. Undestad: Thank you. Well I have a few comments. Tennyson: Do you? Undestad: Yeah, you know there is a lot going on here but I think what I’d like to just clarify is you know what we’re bringing up here is the, you know the plat. The preliminary plat, they’re bringing the project through. We’re not approving the traffic, the roads. We’re not, you know this stuff, there’s a number of conditions that the applicant has to deal with on here and a lot of the concerns I heard, you know that the traffic problem. Currently there is a traffic problem there so potentially this could be solving a traffic problem by bringing in. There is a condition in the report that makes the applicant come up with his you know analysis on the traffic and whether or not we need T. Where or not that would be a stop conditions you know so that needs to be done before this project can go anywhere. There was comments about the water issues out there. There’s a condition in here that requires the applicant that all the recommendations related to subgrade improvements and drainage and that kind of stuff, from a Braun report that that be adhered to so you know there are steps in there that are taking care of that. Staff has made the comment, there are no next gen homes. That’s again in the condition of approval down here so the cul-de-sac is really a function of MnDOT trying to get rid of all accesses off of Highway 7 and we’ve seen that a number of times. The applicant could easily shorten that up a little bit, maybe get 3-4 more lots in there if we ignore the 2 houses to the east out there but you know again I think at the end of the day it’s still a MnDOT call saying we want to eliminate as much as we can out of there and the cul-de-sac does that so. So I think again I hear the concerns out there and there are a number of them and I understand that we want to know what kind of traffic this is going to do and what it’s going to resolve but all the conditions in here are going to require the developer to get these answers before they go put a shovel in the ground out there so. Tennyson: I completely agree and as far as the variance and the length of the cul-de-sac, it’s exactly what a variance is for when there are no other options and those options have been explored so I, I would support this. Hokkanen: Well I agree with everything that both commissioners said and thank the public for their comments and concerns and they are addressed in these conditions that the developer will have to address to move forward. And the next gen homes, it’s a condition in here and we haven’t even addressed that with the City yet so I’d like some clarification on that at some point but otherwise I think that all these conditions once met will probably improve that street and that intersection with the city of Shorewood. Weick: Just a couple comments. As far as the variance. Actually I appreciate the work that the applicant’s done to include those 2 homes either now or into the future. I think that’s necessary so I am in support of that. I also believe in looking at the homes, and thank you for sharing some of the homes in here as well. I do think this is a beautiful addition to the area from a neighborhood standpoint and so I think that’s a good thing. I have similar concerns over the next gen and I’m glad that that’s not going to be part of this, at least out of the gate and the, I personally can’t get over the traffic issue and I know there’s verbiage in here to address it. I’m just not sure exactly what that means and I would be concerned that you know we do a traffic study that says that you know maybe we’re not, there’s not going to be a significant impact and they make a T and then you know everything goes through as planned. I share those concerns and would like to see all of that information. That’s just the biggest, you know I just think the road is an issue today whether you build one more house there or not and it just feels like the responsible thing is to fix that before we add to the issue because I think it is an issue today so those, I have difficulty getting over that in my mind. Even though I mean it fits the code and it fits the acreage. It fits everything and it is beautiful. I mean it really is. I think it’s a great, it’s great value to the Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 17 neighborhood. I’ve never been so concerned over a road before but this one just really doesn’t feel right to me. Tennyson: Anyone want to entertain a motion for approval or denial? Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Tennyson: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Yusuf: Has he made it? Undestad: I’ll make the motion. Tennyson: Oh, he hasn’t made it yet. Undestad: I’ll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Boulder Cove Subdivision with a variance subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Tennyson: Thank you. Do we have a second? Yusuf: Second. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve 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 and Recommendation: 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 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 18 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: 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. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 19 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.The “Next Generation” homes are not permitted under the 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. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 20 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. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 21 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 except for Weick and the motion carried 4 to 1. Aanenson: This item then will appear at the City Council meeting on April 14th. Tennyson: Yes, if you’re following this agenda item it will be with the City Council on April 14th and all of the materials in our packet are available on the City website. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 18, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014 22 Aanenson: On the Monday, March 24th the City Council approved the Lyman Boulevard Wetland Alteration Permit, as well as the Business Impact Group site plan which you saw. I have included in your packet upcoming items. So we’ll just talk about those briefly so then on your April 15th we do have the Arbor Cove in. That’s a subdivision on the back side of the Dogwood. And then Dakota Retail which is a site plan. The redevelopment of the Sinclair site so that will be on. We’ll also talk about some code amendments too. We had a couple that we’re, we had processed them. We’ve been working through a few issues so, these are from last year so we want to process those through. Have a public hearing. We took them to you in a work session and then we actually were working on them for a while. The City Council has seen them but we need to have a public hearing on those so we’ll have a hearing on those as we move forward. So with that, that’s all I had but we will have a regular meeting on April 15th. Is that right? Yes the 15th. Tennyson: That’s what it says. Aanenson: The day after the City Council on the 14th and the Planning Commission. And then I would recommend after we adjourn that we go back into work session. It shouldn’t take maybe another 45 minutes and we’ll go through the rest of the items. Tennyson: Okay. So does anyone want to make a motion to adjourn? Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MARCH 25, 2014 Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cole Kelly, Steve Scharfenberg, Elise Ryan, Brent Carron, Jim Boettcher, Rick Echternacht, and Luke Thunberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Jacob Stolar and Ryan Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Jodi Sarles, Rec Center Manager; Susan Bill, Senior Center Coordinator; and Adam Beers, Park Superintendent PUBLIC PRESENT: Paul Olson 8899 Flesher, Eden Prairie Alan Kramer 531 Indian Hill Road Skip Houghton Minnetonka Mark & Nancy Aulizia 6927 Autumn Trail, Eden Prairie Barb Youngberg 2035 Chicory Way Jerry & Carol Maas 10578 Spyglass Way Orv Asueland 2172 Elton Place, The Villages, Florida R.L. & Renee Carlson 7606 Iroquois Street Jeanette June 960 Daylily Drive, Victoria David Allan 16528 Hidden Valley Road, Minnetonka Curt & Jane Goke 17280 West 66th Street Circle, Eden Prairie Warren Lester 3715 Westview Drive, Deephaven Melinda Colwell 3714 Westview Drive, Deephaven Bruce & Joyce Boje 8193 Marsh Drive Steve & Linda Kloeckner 18041 Evener Way, Eden Prairie Mimi Scribner 5364 Miracle Lane, Minnetonka Ian & Adriana Astbury 6875 Lake Harrison Circle Dave & Deb Tessman 2313 Chateau Lane, Mound Sandy Hotvet 26420 Edgewood Road, Excelsior Pam Schmillen 112212 James Court, Chaska Randi Usher 17628 South Shore Lane W, Eden Prairie APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The agenda was amended to include discussion of the Galpin Boulevard trail connection under New Business. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair Kelly congratulated Steve Scharfenberg, Brent Carron, Luke Thunberg and Jacob Stolar for their reappointment and Tyler Kobilarcsik for this appointment to the Park and Recreation Commission. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jerry Maas, 10578 Spyglass Drive, Eden Prairie, speaking as the President of the Southwest Metro Pickleball Club and as an Ambassador of pickleball for the USAPA, provided background information on the club, benefits of pickleball and discussed a $40,000 grant Park and Recreation Commission Summary – March 25, 2014 2 application to go towards pickleball courts at the Rec Center. Chairman Kelly asked about the condition of the current pickleball courts and needed maintenance work. Commissioner Scharfenberg asked about the ownership status of the tennis courts. Steve Kloeckner from Eden Prairie asked the commission to consider that as seniors most of the court usage is during the day and does not interfere with other activities. Chair Kelly asked staff to include this item for discussion with the 2015 Capital Improvement Program. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Carron moved, Thunberg seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated February 25, 2014 as presented and Work Session Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated March 11, 2014 as presented. PRESENTATION OF 2013 PARK AND RECREATION ANNUAL REPORT. Jerry Ruegemer reviewed highlights of the Park and Recreation Annual Report for 2013. Commissioner Ryan asked for an update on the Highover stair construction project. REVIEW ICE SKATING/HOCKEY RINK FLOODING AND MAINTENANCE POLICY. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Ryan asked about the earliest opening date for skating rinks. Commissioner Echternacht asked what year the rinks at Bandimere Park will open. After discussion between commission members and staff on flexibility around the opening and closing dates, the following motion was made. Carron moved, Ryan seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the updated Skating Rink Policy to include operations at the Chanhassen Recreation Center beyond February 20th. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. REVIEW BIDS FOR JULY 4TH FIREWORKS CONTRACT, 2014-2016. Jerry Ruegemer reviewed the quote submitted by Pyrotechnic Display Inc. Carron moved, Thunberg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council award a three-year contract (2014-2016) to Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. for the provision of 4th of July fireworks in the amount of $23,000 per year, including the addendum prepared by the city attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. GALPIN BOULEVARD TRAIL CONNECTION. Todd Hoffman discussed plans for construction of a 650 foot trail gap between Shorewood and Chanhassen’s trail system and asked that the commission consider this item with the upcoming CIP discussion. Commissioner Boettcher asked about the location of the trail and safety concerns with pedestrians crossing at the bottom of a hill. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2013/14 ICE SKATING/HOCKEY RINK EVALUATION. Jerry Ruegemer stated he or Adam Beers or Todd Hoffman were available to answer questions. Commissioner Ryan asked about issues with the warming house supplier, Mod Space and safety concerns with the elevated warming houses. 2014 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Jerry Ruegemer presented an update on the 2014 Easter Egg Candy Hunt being held on Saturday, April 19th. Park and Recreation Commission Summary – March 25, 2014 3 RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Jodi Sarles provided updates on facility issues over the winter with the sidewalk heaving and a broken basketball back board, facility usage, Dance for Fun program, Rec Center Sports and the Spring Boutique. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Susan Bill provided updates on the Lifelong Learning Series, Senior Advisory Board elections and new brochure she’s working on to use for marketing. PARK & TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Adam Beers provided updates on the ice skating rinks, central irrigation plan, Sentence to Serve program and general maintenance issues. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Commissioner Thunberg discussed the Pioneer Pass neighborhood meeting where playground equipment was discussed. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Todd Hoffman discussed items in the Administrative Packet. Commissioner Echternacht asked for clarification of the Bandimere expansion plan and possible funding sources for future projects. Carron moved, Echternacht seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25, 2014 Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cole Kelly, Steve Scharfenberg, Elise Ryan, Brent Carron, Jim Boettcher, Rick Echternacht, Luke Thunberg and Jacob Stolar MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan Lynch STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Jodi Sarles, Rec Center Manager; Susan Bill, Senior Center Coordinator; and Adam Beers, Park Superintendent PUBLIC PRESENT: Paul Olson 8899 Flesher, Eden Prairie Alan Kramer 531 Indian Hill Road Skip Houghton Minnetonka Mark & Nancy Aulizia 6927 Autumn Trail, Eden Prairie Barb Youngberg 2035 Chicory Way Jerry & Carol Maas 10578 Spyglass Way Orv Asueland 2172 Elton Place, The Villages, Florida R.L. & Renee Carlson 7606 Iroquois Street Jeanette June 960 Daylily Drive, Victoria David Allan 16528 Hidden Valley Road, Minnetonka Curt & Jane Goke 17280 West 66th Street Circle, Eden Prairie Warren Lester 3715 Westview Drive, Deephaven Melinda Colwell 3714 Westview Drive, Deephaven Bruce & Joyce Boje 8193 Marsh Drive Steve & Linda Kloeckner 18041 Evener Way, Eden Prairie Mimi Scribner 5364 Miracle Lane, Minnetonka Ian & Adriana Astbury 6875 Lake Harrison Circle Dave & Deb Tessman 2313 Chateau Lane, Mound Sandy Hotvet 26420 Edgewood Road, Excelsior Pam Schmillen 112212 James Court, Chaska Randi Usher 17628 South Shore Lane W, Eden Prairie APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Hoffman: Thank you Chair Kelly, members of the commission. I’d like to add the Galpin Boulevard trail connection per our conversation. We can do that during reports. Kelly: During reports or should it be under new business number 4? Hoffman: Oh sure. Great. Kelly: Any other changes? Questions? Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 2 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Kelly: Any public announcements Todd? Before we move to visitor presentations I’d like to congratulate Steve, Luke, Brent and Jacob for their reappointment to the commission. I’d also like to congratulate Tyler, do you want to pronounce the last name for me? Hoffman: Kobilarcsik I think. Kelly: His appointment to the commission. Then we’ll move on to visitor presentations. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Kelly: Any visitor who comes up we’d like your name and address where you are and come on up and approach and make a presentation. I understand we have a couple tonight. Jerry Maas: My name is Jerry Maas. I live at 10578 Spyglass Drive in Eden Prairie. Don’t let that scare you. I’m very familiar with Chanhassen and been out here a lot. Listen I’d like to first of all thank the members of the commission for hearing us out. As you can tell by the number of people that play pickleball that are interested in what we have to say to come and hear us as well, that this is really important to us. I start out by saying we’re used to people saying to us, what’s pickleball because it’s not, it’s just a common question and I hope you all had occasion to look at the NBC piece that we kind of circulated to help you set a foundation for, for this meeting to save some of your time as well. Now I’m the President of the Southwest Metro Pickleball Club and who are they? Well 3 years ago a half a dozen of us or more formed the club for the purpose of helping pickleball players gather together and to address problems like we’re going to talk about tonight kind of together so we didn’t have 51 people going 49 different directions. I’m also an ambassador for pickleball from the USAPA. Today the Southwest Metro Pickleball Club has in excess of 200 members. We primarily are from Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Bloomington and Minnetonka. We have a few people outside of that but not many. All it takes to be a member is pay me $10 in dues and have a love for pickleball. We run a couple of tournaments every year. One in Eden Prairie in July and one in Bloomington in August and all, and all pickleball players are invited to participate. We do some social things as a group. You’ll notice all the conversation you heard there, these people are more, are interested in each other more than just playing on the court. There’s a lot of social things take place. We’ve been to Feed My Starving Children a couple of times and holiday parties. That’s what we’re all about. It’s a social organization that plays pickleball. Now let’s talk about the courts that we visited with Todd about in Chanhassen that obviously need some attention. We’ve been talking about these things for several months and I’ve found that there is an opportunity for some corporate grant money, if you’re lucky I think. But I’ve applied for a $40,000 grant and I’ve cleared this all with the staff. Todd and his group so that I didn’t say things that were not at least reasonable and rational and if we were to get that money approved of course it will go a long ways towards fixing up the courts that we have, that you have in Chanhassen next to the Rec Center so we’re really very supportive of the staff’s recommendation to do something about those courts. First of all it’s a great location. It’s currently frankly unusable generally. We’ve got a couple courts on it but they’re really tough to use. It’s laid out in such a way that it would work very well with a north/south orientation which is kind of important for pickleball because the sun gets in your eyes when you don’t have the north/south orientation. There’s plenty of parking in that location. The Rec Center is very close. That means that there’s flushies there and for guys my age that’s kind of important. And there’s water there. It’s not close to any homes. Frankly pickleball can be noisy and neighbors sometimes don’t take real kindly to that but this location is not even close enough to be of concern. The lights are already in place. The fencing that’s there is fully adequate for our purposes, in fact more than what we would need so we would hope it could be re-used as is but I’ll have to leave those kinds of questions to engineers that know more about that kind of stuff than Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 3 I do. The footprint that’s there is plenty adequate. We don’t know because I don’t want to go out and tramp around in the snow and measure whether the thing is capable of 6 courts or 8 courts but that’s really not necessary to know at this time. When we get ready to do something, laying it out in the best possible way and using it the most efficient is the best thing to do. Pickleball is growing. We’ve had, as you can see from the growth of the Southwest Pickleball Club, we’ve had lots of different things. Currently we have 2, we have a traveling league that plays at the Chanhassen Rec Center Thursday afternoons. We had some time on Tuesdays that was available and we put out the word and lo and behold we had a ladies league sign up. It wasn’t planned that way. It just happened that way and we were delighted because this game is almost gender neutral. The gals seem to take great delight in beating up on some of us guys and they do it quite effectively so the ladies league has just got through with their second session in Chanhassen and everybody’s looking forward to playing outdoors so I’m not sure how much longer that’s going to go but it will, those gals have had a good time and are enjoying it. Young folks are coming out. Sunday night I played at Chanhassen and a couple of young guys 13 and about 10 taught be a few things. They can play the game as effectively as adults and they do very, very well. We have the Minnesota Senior Games have been played in Minnesota for several years. A couple years ago they added pickleball as one of their games, or one of the many games they play in the Minnesota Senior Games. The first year they did that about 30 players showed up. Last year over 90 players showed up. It is the largest contingent of athletes in the Minnesota Senior Games. The Minnesota Senior Games are played age specific so guys like me that are approaching 75, I don’t have to play against 50 year olds. I get to play against other people of my age and that’s, for me at least an advantage. It’s growing in Chanhassen as well. I think we visited with Jodi a couple years ago to get started and we had trouble getting enough people to show up the first few weeks to make a game work. Pickleball unlike tennis is a social activity. Tennis traditionally what would happen is you would call up 2 or 3 or 4 people that you know and say hey, let’s have a game and we’ll meet at so and so and play you know whatever. And with pickleball you have a specific time, okay we play pickleball at Chanhassen from 9:00 to 11:00 Monday, Wednesday and Friday or whatever the days are and people just show up. They play with and against each other and so it is not like tennis in that respect. Lee Carlson has been a great help here. Lee has worked closely with Jodi to get us started in Chanhassen. He follows it very closely. Lee is one of the members of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Metro Pickleball Club and has been very helpful to make the whole thing work here. I don’t know as I need to go into a great commercial with you about the value of exercise for seniors or anyone but it’s obvious that we need to have every opportunity we can. Pickleball’s a fun sport. The commercial, or I mean the news story that we gave you would give you all the information I think you want and it’s fun at almost every level. We had a beginners thing at the Jewish Community Center in St. Louis Park today and somewhere between 12 and 15, I said little, short Jewish ladies showed up and had a grand time. I mean they were just great people and we had a great time with them so it will work. It gives us an opportunity, those of us my age to interface with younger folks when they show up and we enjoy that as well. With that I’m going to shut up a minute because I could go on and on and on and I’m going to entertain, if you have any questions and see if anybody else has something they want to add so that we get you up to speed with us what pickleball’s all about. Kelly: I think you did a nice job of explaining pickleball and a number of us have been over and seen the courts that we do have so we do have an idea of what pickleball is because Jodi has been telling us about pickleball for the last year so it’s not new to us and I guess what, you know you came up and explained to us a lot about pickleball and you explained that you might be getting a $40,000 grant. What you really haven’t said is what are you looking at from the commission? What are you looking for us to do for you? Jerry Maas: Cole I’m sorry, I’m going to have to bow to your staff here whom have, we’ve met with and they’ve talked about the fact that they need to do something with that court to get it up to acceptable standards on their behalf as well as playable, you know is what we would look for and our message to Todd and his group was that look, whatever you need, tell us how we can help you. Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 4 Kelly: Okay. Jerry Maas: And that was the reason I went to work and tried to find some corporate money if you will to help. Obviously that’s not approved and I don’t have the dollars in hand yet. When you’re applying for these things they’re always kind of iffy but I’m also optimistic enough that I’m going to give it a shot. Did I say that right Todd? Hoffman: Absolutely. Scharfenberg: Jerry just, I have a question for you. In terms of that grant, when will you know whether or not that grant is approved? Do they have a timeline on that? Jerry Maas: Their website says they meet quarterly. I sent this thing in last week and so I can follow it’s progress online but I can’t answer that question with any definitive. I’ll follow it is about all I can tell you. The folks that approve those things said they meet quarterly and they gave me the ability to find out where it is all the time so. Scharfenberg: Okay. Kelly: Other questions for Jerry at the moment? Todd I think I’ll have you speak to it unless you want Jodi to on the shape the courts are in. I know we have a sinkhole in the back of the courts over there and we have some issues with that and I do forget the number of courts we have over there right now and, 3. Thank you Lee. And what are we looking at cost wise for redoing it and how many courts can we fit in there and how do we settle, do we have a way to settle the sinkhole problem we have over there? Hoffman: Chair Kelly, members of the commission. At Chanhassen we’re always looking for opportunities to solve a problem and this has been a problem since the day this court was built so this, it’s 4 tennis courts. There’s 2 in the north bank and 2 in the south bank that are lit. This was a project between Independent School District 112 and the City of Chanhassen at the time. We did not want to accept the court. We knew it was going to continue sinking. The School District accepted it on our behalf, on the City’s behalf and it did continue to sink where it then became unplayable as a tennis court within 5 or 7 years of it being constructed. So we did not have a real incentive to repair it as a tennis court because the 2 courts that were there in existing good condition really satisfied the need for the tennis courts at that particular facility so we just let them fall into disrepair and become unplayable until pickleball came along and they could create 3 courts. You see the 2 courts here that are north and south and then there’s one playing east and west just off of the left hand of the picture there. So they can play 3 courts on the abandoned tennis courts in it’s current configuration. But as the City of Chanhassen as a number one community we’re really not interested in continuing to have that sunken tennis court in the middle of our Chanhassen Recreation Center and so to have an opportunity to work with a group like pickleball where we have, we now do have an incentive to fix that court, we think this is a really nice opportunity. Their group was nice enough to go off and apply for potential grant monies through the General Mills Foundation. That’s the group? Jerry Maas: Right. Hoffman: And to see if they can secure those funds. If not we’ll know whether or not those funds are available at the same time you’re talking about your 2015 capital improvement program so now that I think you have an interested user group in front of you, you have a good incentive to have as a commission to talk about whether or not it’s a valuable investment to put dollars back into these courts to create not new tennis courts but to remodel them into pickleball courts for this user group that we have here in our community. Then they can really lock their teeth into the Rec Center with indoor pickleball in Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 5 the winter and outdoor pickleball in the summer and I think we’ll have a nice facility at our really our number one community center, recreation center site in our city so that’s our goal. If the grant doesn’t come through we would like to ask the commission to talk about this remodel project as a part of your CIP for a future year. In 2015 or beyond. Kelly: So would the $40,000 grant take care of most of the money that’s needed or how much more is needed beyond $40,000? Has staff looked at that yet? Hoffman: It’s known at the present time but we think that would probably do it. There’s a number of different ways. You could excavate and repair that and so depending on you know how many dollars are set aside you know I think that $40,000 would accomplish but we don’t know that exactly just yet. We need to have a feasibility study report done. Scharfenberg: Todd you had mentioned initially that this was built in conjunction with the School District. Is this part of the joint powers agreement or is this, are these courts solely within the City’s discretion in repairing and that? Hoffman: They’re solely owned and operated by the City at this time. At that time they were the contractor. We were the owner but they were building them on our behalf. We were paying for them. Scharfenberg: Okay. Kelly: Any other questions for Jerry? Anybody else going to present or talk tonight? Jerry Maas: Did I leave something out? Kelly: Yes you may? Please step up. Steve Kloeckner: One other thing to consider is that. Kelly: Excuse me, would you come up to the podium so everybody can hear. We need to know your name and your address please. Steve Kloeckner: My name is Steve Kloeckner. I also live in Eden Prairie. One thing to consider when you’re looking at that, as seniors we use these courts during the day when nobody else is using them so it’s giving you more usage of a facility that you aren’t getting now. We’re not going to interfere with a lot of the other families and groups that come in the evening, although we are going to want some night time play but at least you’re going to be able to get more use out of the facilities and so it’s a good return on your investment. Kelly: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Anybody else like to make a comment? Todd I think we should throw this on our agenda when we talk about our CIP this year for the next 5 years and put it on for the 2015 to be discussed. Jerry Maas: I appreciate your time and I’d be remiss if I didn’t invite you all to stop by the Chanhassen Rec Center and participate in pickleball as well. You’ll be welcomed by this group of players and if you don’t know how, trust me we all started not knowing how and we’ll help you. Kelly: Thank you for your presentation Jerry. Hoffman: Thanks for coming out. Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 6 Kelly: We’ll wait a moment before we move on. Hoffman: We need to thank Sue as well. Sue’s been very involved in the pickleball group. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Carron moved, Thunberg seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated February 25, 2014 as presented and Work Session Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated March 11, 2014 as presented. Scharfenberg: Say just before we get off the pickleball mania Todd will, in conjunction with Chairman Kelly’s request, will you be putting together something for us in preparation for that? I know you deal with the CIP all the time with costs and stuff like that so I’m assuming that that will just be as part of the general projects that you have on there? Hoffman: Correct. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: As far as the, what we’ll present is a concept proposal for the CIP. We’ll include the repair of those courts one way or the other, whether the grant money is there. We need a number, a dollar amount. Scharfenberg: Right. Hoffman: We’ve done a variety of cost estimates over the years and really what we just need to understand is you know, if we just put a surface coat over the top, is it going to continue to sink and then we’ve gained nothing in that expenditure so we just have to figure out how we’re going to repair…and take care of that so we’ll get as close as we can without doing a full blown… Ryan: And Todd the earliest this could be done would be 2015? Hoffman: Correct. Ryan: Okay. Hoffman: They’ve got the 3 courts there now that the parks crew worked with them installing and what was left. The east court sunk the worst and the west court was not playable. The tennis court, part of it was sinking but we could play in a smaller pickleball court in that location so. They weren’t picky and moved right in. Carron: One more clarification. Would this be coming out of the capital expense or the park and rec expense? Hoffman: Probably the capital because you’re repairing an existing facility. Carron: Okay. PRESENTATION OF 2013 PARK AND RECREATION ANNUAL REPORT. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Kelly. Our staff just completed this annual document that we produce through our department. The report identifies accomplishments and information related to all of our Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 7 divisions within our Park and Rec Department. The information certainly is used to, for us to look forward in evaluating our performance not only this year but into the future as well for that so we can keep continuing to offer quality programs, customer service and you know look ahead to future facilities that we may need or desire so we’re going to go through that. Everybody has a copy of the full document within their park packet. We’re going to get kind of a quick snapshot of each division and allocate and look at a couple highlights so we’re going to start off with that good looking group in front of you right there. That’s our 2013 Park and Rec Commission. This year we did add a couple youth commissioners with Ryan and Jacob with that so that was a new thing that we did for this year. Senior Center highlights, the Chan-o-laires, the music group down in the Senior Center celebrated their 20th anniversary this year so that’s been a successful group. They sing at many different functions and events throughout the city. Sue always has a lot of special classes and interest classes down in the Senior Center. Sue’s always very good at looking at and identifying new programs that certainly have interest down there. Meals on Wheels is always a very popular program down there so you can see we delivered over 3,300 meals this year. 509 volunteer hours and 4,900 miles driven with that so it’s a, people are very committed to volunteer for that program so it’s a great thing down in the Senior Center. And that picture was what Sue, the Tea Luncheon? Bill: It was. The Tea Luncheon and Fashion Show. Ruegemer: Rec Center highlights. You can see we have a lot of non-billable hours utilized not only through our city programs but also a lot of programs with the school district, other governmental agencies and athletic associations so the Rec Center is really a recreation hub for our community that we provide really a meeting place and focal point for many different organizations within our community so it’s really an asset for us and we couldn’t do it without Jodi and her team out there. The Dance for Fun program continues to grow and is one of the most popular programs at the Rec Center. And really a highlight, we did increase over $6,600 in revenue from 2012 so it’s a good testament to what Jodi is doing out there so good job with that. Jodi always looks for new things to add and utilizes space at the Rec Center. Added the Spring Boutique and certainly is growing the Artisan Fair out there. We had a lot of visitors for that and Jodi increased the revenue over $8,300 from the previous year in 2013 so good job. Keep looking for those programs. Rec Center Sports has been a continued success for Jodi and her team out there. As you can see how many sessions we increased from 2012. We started with 13 and we increased it to 42 in 2013 so just keep continuing to increase in participation and again revenues increased over $8,300 from 2012 so that continues to be a very popular program with that age group and it’s been really a program that really is continuing to gain momentum throughout the year so. Youth programs. We have over 250 programs that we offer on an annual basis with 3,000 participants ranging from 17. From birth to 17 so we generate over $25,000 in profit for those programs. Certainly Summer Discovery Playground is a, is one of our most popular programs within that budget or program offerings. With that last year we had 22 sessions with over 400 participants in that and that will be starting again tomorrow. The registration will be starting at 12:01 tonight March 26th so the Chan Connection will hit the papers, or hit the news mailbox I guess tomorrow so I delivered those to the annex today so hopefully they’ll be out in everybody’s mailboxes tomorrow and you can see a sampling of that in front of you tonight. There’s just really one thing that we’re really proud of within the youth program highlights is our volunteer program that we had for our youth this year. Really is the first year that we had offered it in 2013. We had over 272 hours of volunteer service within our community so they really helped out with programs that we have going. They helped out with senior activities with Sue’s different picnics and different events going on. They helped out with special events and different service projects so they were very busy all summer long. Painting underpasses or helping out you know clean parks or different things so it’s a program that was set up for kids that really aren’t old enough to get a job yet and just to kind of give back to the community. Kind of give them some, some skills that they can kind of parlay into a job into the future so, and it really helped us out tremendously as well so. Adaptive recreation programs that we have. We do contract through REACH for Resources. We have for a number of years now and they’re Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 8 always helping us out with different inclusions and other programs that we may need help with, with our residents that have special needs within our community. They host their annual picnic out at Lake Susan and they really enjoy that park just with the playground equipment and the picnic shelter being close to the lake so it’s a great partnership that we have through REACH and it’s really an effective way for us to have a nice contract for special needs within our community. Adult athletics. Between the two summer and fall softball last year we had 30 softball teams. 450 individuals participated within those leagues with revenue just a hair over $16,000. Our Easter Egg Candy Hunt, hopefully we won’t repeat that picture this year. That was something having snow/ice on that. It was earlier last year but April 19th will be the date for this year’s and we’ll talk about that a little bit later. Great event. As always we did move that from the Rec Center back up here to City Center Park just to kind of you know, kind of pull focal point back into town here a little bit more and kind of spread out our recreation facilities a little bit more. Really one of the highlights continues to be our sponsorship program. We started that quite a few years ago and last year we had 57 sponsors that contributed over almost $32,000 in kind services, cash, and other things involved with that program so, you guys worked the Feb Fest. You know kind of how it works with all the donated prizes and that sort of thing so that really lowers our cost for our programs with that and I think we really do a great job on getting their information out on our community flyers. Our schedule of events. Our web page. We did a lot now with, if you get to a certain level of sponsorship we’ll get your logo and stuff on all of our promotional materials so we’re really trying to take that up a next level and we’re doing a great job. Mitch does a great job with following up with the people and getting people to sign up on the dotted line with that program so we’re very proud of that. We did celebrate our 30th anniversary of our 4th of July celebration in 2013. That was a great accomplishment. The KleinBank Summer Concert Series continues to grow which was really one of our most successful seasons to date with over 400 people on average attending those events so we’re going to be doing the series again this year with Klein. We’re going to be doing every Thursday starting in June and ending in late July, early August for 8 or 9 straight weeks this year so that will be very popular so every Thursday for the summer we’ll have a concert, music going here at City Center Park. Facilities. It’s always a really thing that people really enjoy within our division and our city. We did have a lot of people enjoy the ice skating. We had a great year last year. Our 8 outdoor rinks. We had a little bit less of a warm summer in 2013 as we did in 2012 but we still had over 21,000 swimmers enjoy Lake Ann and swim at the beach while the guards are on duty for that. We had a great year in rentals last year for picnic pavilions. We had 119. I think that might be the most that we ever had and that’s just rentals. That isn’t people using the shelters and choosing not to have a rental with that so, and we generated over $15,000 in revenue which is a really great thing for us. Aquatic invasive species highlights. You know that program continues to be a very kind of a high profile program within our community. The city inspection program included 3 lakes. Lake Ann, Lake Susan and Lotus Lake. You can see we had over 4,800 inbound and outbound inspections that were completed for an overall inspection rate of 1.57 inspections per hour so, and as of to date no zebra mussels were identified as being transported to or from any of the 3 boat accesses so I think we can be proud of that. Park maintenance. Adam and his crew were extremely busy, not only in 2014 but also in 2013. Adam and crew do great work and do a lot of work for the individuals that they have for that. We’re spread pretty thin sometimes but we do maintain over 100 miles of pedestrian trails not only in the summertime with trimming trees and mowing grass but also in the wintertime with plowing. Plowing and more plowing with that so they’re always pretty busy with that. We have a lot of, over 500 acres of you know natural parkland and over 400 acres of developed parkland that we maintain so, and certainly the highlight, one of the highlights for 2013 was Dale Gregory retired after 42 years so certainly we can thank Dale for all he contributed to our organization for all those years. Park improvements certainly was highlighted by the Riley Ridge Park construction project. With that the neighborhood really rallied and put forth a great effort with that. The commission was down there to help as well with that so, and certainly be looking forward to Pioneer Pass Park getting done this year with the equipment. Last year Pioneer Pass certainly was graded, seeded and prepped for this year’s activity and for the playground and finish off that park. And really one of the highlights for 2013 really was to complete that Rice Marsh Lake trail with the City of Eden Prairie with that so a great accomplishment and people are really Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 9 enjoying that trail. Partnerships, really across all of our divisions. We maintain over 70 partnerships through Sue and the Senior Center and Jodi at the Rec Center, Adam park maintenance, recreation programs so we’re really continuing to grow that on an annual basis and that really helps us out tremendously with kind of how we operate our business and we really couldn’t do it without them. As you can see there’s just a, one example of the KleinBank partnership and we have a lot of those across our, all of our divisions so we couldn’t thank them enough. Capital improvement, you know you can see in the picture was kind of the tire bumping day in October, 2013. Just what a beautiful day it was. The leaves were great color that day so we did accomplish 6 different project items ranging in cost from $10,000 to $350,000 in total cost. Project cost and with a total of $695,000 for 2013 so that’s kind of a quick snapshot of the annual report. There certainly is much more information within that document that you all had received with that. We’re very proud of the document that we produce every year. It will be posted on our City website after it’s approved by City Council. That’s coming up April 14th so that, so it really gives us a pretty good view of what we’ve accomplished for 2013 so I will entertain any questions you may have. Kelly: Questions for Jerry? It’s a very impressive document Jerry. Good job putting it together and nice explanation tonight, thank you. Ruegemer: Thank you Cole. Hoffman: And as a staff we want to thank you for all of your leadership and all of our special events throughout the year so. I think Jerry probably mentioned that a couple of times but it’s really your leadership that inspires us to continue on so thank you for that throughout the year. And you come out to a lot of special events and park board meetings and special meetings. Playground installations. We’re going to lean on Luke here. He’s going to get his neighborhood rallied up. You know he’s leading that charge with us so really proud of all the work that you do on an annual basis and I know Cole set up a congratulations again to the new appointees from last evening’s meeting. We look forward to having you for another 3 years. I told this group you’ve got no lame ducks here tonight so hit them hard and put them to work for you so thank you. Kelly: Thanks Todd. Ryan: Excuse me. Could I, I just noticed on the park improvement, the list just the overview it mentions the Highover stair project. What, did the, what’s the update on that? I thought that company had pulled out and. Hoffman: We hope not. They just didn’t get the work done last year and so it was really our first project we wanted to finish in the spring but we had that excessively wet spring so it really didn’t dry out until well after the July 4th. Just around August 1st and then the contractor said they were going to be there but they got busy with other jobs and they did not show up. We had a number of project meetings with the homeowners there and the contractor and so we’re currently working with Theis Construction again to see if we can get them out there this spring to fulfill that agreement with the City. Ryan: So it is going in. Just coming this spring. Hoffman: We hope so. Ryan: Okay, thank you. Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 10 REVIEW ICE SKATING/HOCKEY RINK FLOODING AND MAINTENANCE POLICY. Kelly: And I understand Mitch is in Norway so Jerry I guess you’ll be talking about the skating rink policy tonight. Ruegemer: I sure will be. Thank you again. Kind of the tail end of our February 25th meeting the Park and Rec Commission had discussed the skating rink program and kind of asked is it a possibility of you know extending the season into, obviously we had kind of a different winter this year. It was really historic winter and cold and wind and snow and all that stuff here again so I know park maintenance crews were extremely challenged this year throughout the skating rink season so they really were kind of working on fumes kind of towards the tail end of the skating rink season so on February 29th, following a pretty heavy snow storm, 9 to 11 inches the decision was made to close the rinks. All 8 hockey and family rinks for the season. You know even though the temperatures were cold enough to continue the season, we just didn’t really feel that it was worth it with the amount of time, labor, equipment, fuel required to re-open the rinks for the kind of the tail end of that season with just the thought of the warmer weather coming. The sun angles and that sort of thing here so last meeting the commission did discuss kind of the merits of keeping one rink open beyond kind of the established calendar date which we had as February 20th and if it’s favorable to do so, so staff kind of put that together. Some information for the commission to take a look at tonight. Staff is recommending, if we do continue beyond February 20th of each year that the Chanhassen Recreation Center be the only functioning location with that just because of the popularity of the Rec Center for skaters that do use that location and also the permanent warming house that is currently located there. The portable warming houses then at City Center Park and North Lotus Lake Park then could be eliminated and returned saving the program expense that we don’t need to take on. Certainly the Chan Rec Center could maintain the family rink and 2 hockey rinks as long as the favorable weather exists with that so below is our current rink flooding policy. With exception I did add down on the bottom of the policy kind of the wording or the verbiage that could support extending the season beyond February 20th so basically the policy as it reads today just would end, the season will be cancelled if rinks are not opened by January 11th and that is kind of, that takes care of the early part of the season. If warm weathers exist and rinks cannot be flooded until, that’s kind of our, kind of our date identified to, kind of our drop dead date if we continue or not continue. So just to add after February 20th, weather permitting the Chanhassen Recreation Center will be the only location maintained until the conclusion of the skating season, and certainly the commission can review any part of that policy. If there’s any wording that you’d like differently we certainly can look at that and entertain that tonight. Just to look at the costs associated with going past February 20th. We can take a look at those, generally kind of an estimate, a daily average would be 510 days for Adam’s crew to go out and sweep clean and flood. That’d be about roughly about $510 per day at 7 days a week, it would be roughly just over $3,500 per week for the maintenance, park maintenance side of the equation. The expenses. And then rink attendant costs at 42 hours a week to staff the recreation center warming house at $8 an hour would be approximately $336. So just a hair over $3,900 per week to maintain the rinks for both park maintenance and labor costs associated with the rink attendants. Just to give the commission just a quick overview of the 2012-2013. So last winter season we did close after February, well we closed February 28th so we stayed 8 days open I guess beyond that February 20th that we’re proposing this year and we had a total of 274 participants at the Rec Center during that time. Just to give you kind of an idea of kind of the numbers that we’re talking about based on one year’s numbers of last year so, so if we look at that it’d be roughly about $3,900 per week to maintain those and then just on that back page just has kind of all the 2013-14 ice rink expenses and that includes the, all of the Adam’s crews cost with fuel, labor cost for overtime for flooding rinks. Seasonal wages. Warming house rentals. Kind of all that would be included in there. For the Rec Center expenses for the $3,900 we did back out the other expenses for the warming houses and then also labor costs associated with staffing those other warming houses that we didn’t need anymore so, so it’s staff’s recommendation that the council, or excuse me the Park and Rec Commission approve the updated skating rink policy to include operations at the Chanhassen Recreation Center Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 11 beyond February 20th. Kelly: Jerry is that January 11th date, is that the current policy also? Ruegemer: Yes. Kelly: Okay, thank you. Other questions for Jerry? Ryan: What, I see that it starts approximately December 16th. What historically, what is the earliest you’ve opened before? Ruegemer: I think it was this year wasn’t it? I think it was this year. December 13th so you know, that’s on average it’s right around the holiday break. Just maybe the weekend before Christmas type of thing so don’t normally open, you know about the second week in December. Scharfenberg: So they’re flooding before that. They’re just not open until. Ruegemer: Correct. Scharfenberg: Until they’ve got everything kind of set. Ruegemer: Right. Scharfenberg: Right. Depending, again depending on the weather. Echternacht: Bandimere, are we looking at the 15-16 season or are we looking at 14-15 of having rinks out there? Hoffman: Currently not scheduled or programmed yet. Echternacht: Okay. Well I would say that once that’s opened we would want them to be, I would think we would want that to be the, at least left open besides the Rec Center. Kelly: Curious question. All the snow we got is, you made the decision on that date to shut down the rinks. Let’s say the weather stayed the same but we didn’t get all the snow on that date, what date would we have shut down most of the rinks do you think? Ruegemer: More than likely we would have went until either frost boils pop up or they became unskateable you know around the boards. The north end of the boards typically melt first so really until conditions warranted us closing those so. Had it stayed cold like that and no snow, we’ve made it well into a week or two into March in the past so there really isn’t a you know a hard set date. It really is based on kind of the weather so just because it, if it is cold in future years, if February 20th comes around. We’re not just going to pull the plug and stop. Kelly: I mean that leads to my next question is, if basically it says on the 20th you know we only keep open the Chan Rec Center. Let’s say we have perfect weather for the kids to stay out. Are we limiting ourselves with this wording? And again I realize most years we’re not going to get to this date but are we limiting ourselves and is part of the reason is we’re going because of the cost we want to go with this date anyway? I mean what does staff feel about that? Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 12 Ruegemer: I just think kind of looking into the future I think it probably would be best just to focus energies and just go down to one location. A lot of times we’re focusing our efforts on widening trails or trimming trees, that sort of thing. I think the return on the investment would be better served if we went down to one location. Scharfenberg: And Jerry can you speak to the cut off date of February 20th? Why was that date used? I don’t know if there was any specifics. It was just kind of based on the average of the years, that’s kind of when things kind of deteriorated? Ruegemer: Yeah that’s kind of correct Steve with that. Just kind of based on averages. Hoffman: And interesting enough this year, if rinks could have been kept open after the 20th, for about the next 10 days 3 of those days would have been closed because of cold so I mean that’s how cold it was. And a number of communities go Feb 15th and they just shut them down no matter what’s going on. This year on the 20th we were so just really out of energy. If given a normal year, if we were experiencing a normal year with snowfall and cold and other labor, we would open them right back up on the 20th after that snow but given how many times we had battled the weather to re-open them, you know we were just done at that point and so this is a good compromise policy I think. It gives everybody a little bit of understanding on what’s going to be open. What’s going to be closed. What’s going to be available and what’s not. Carron: Jerry, I like the wording. I appreciate you guys taking a look at this and opening up a little bit and I might just throw one little more consideration to see what you might think about this but the wording the season will be cancelled if rinks are not opened by January 11th. Is there any room with that wording to possibly say after January 11th, let’s say there is cold weather. We can do it. To keep a rink open out at the Rec Center. Or at that point does flooding and everything else just get to the point where it’s not going to be feasible? Ruegemer: You know it really does depend on weather conditions, that sort of thing. I mean if you guys certainly want to discuss that further we certainly would entertain that but usually by January 11th if we don’t have rinks open, it does take a lot of effort and labor. You know certainly over the holiday break is really when the probably the most use continues to happen. When kids are home from school. That sort of thing so you know it starts to wane a little bit you know kind of come mid-January for that so it may not be worth the effort to get them all going or to get one going. Just really depends on weather. Hoffman: That policy was put in place by a past park board. Not a staff recommendation so that was put in place by a park commission that we had a really unusually warm winter and there was like a winter where you cannot flood. When does it make sense? At January 11th you’re looking at potentially just 30 days of ice in a number of seasons. If you study the opening and closing there are, most years we open and close multiple times throughout the season just because of warm weather typically and so you’ve got about that 3 month window but there’s lots of variables. And it’s really the sun after February 20th that really starts to give you the biggest challenges. Even at zero degrees after February 15th the north side of the boards start to melt on a sunny day and it’s a challenge to keep that ice in playable condition and then you start having safety concerns in some areas after that. Ryan: And not to be a stickler, coming back to the beginning of the season but is there anyway that we can evaluate come December 1st and to lengthen the season that way as opposed to waiting until the 15th because of the sun? I mean we usually get the cold early and to get the season started a little bit earlier, excuse me. Might serve us well with the issues that we have come later in the season so, how many days does it take to flood? Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 13 Beers: I think it probably took a good week. Ruegemer: Yeah, usually about 7. 7 to 10 days of pretty consistent flooding. Beers: And you’re going around the clock for about a week. Ruegemer: A lot of times it isn’t, you know there may not be enough frost in the ground yet. The ground is still warm. I don’t know what the magic number was for the ground temperature but a lot of times the water doesn’t set up in the ground so typically like earlier December, sometimes the conditions aren’t right to flood and so they really have to be kind of the proper temperature and ground temperature. Hoffman: Yeah there’s nothing precluding us from starting as early as we can. As early as conditions allow. Ryan: Okay. Hoffman: And so we always want to get the earliest opening date that conditions allow but we need to drive some frost into the ground so when you dump all that water on it, it doesn’t take the frost back out and then the water just flows back down. Once we start this process it’s 24/7 overnight shifts. Using a lot of equipment. A lot of fuel. A lot of labor so we want to make sure that it’s successful. The start up is successful and if you start that on the first cold snap and then it all melts away in you know say mid- December, then you’re starting over. You really put your largest amount of investment in those overnight shifts early on in the season so we just want to make sure that we time that correctly as best we can. We always open as early as possible. Ryan: So even though that the numbers are in here, it’s not that you’re not evaluating it come December 1st saying maybe we can get the rinks open earlier, correct? Ruegemer: Absolutely. That conversation is happening daily with that so I mean park crews want to get out there as soon as they can and as long as the conditions are proper they’ll get out there. We’ll open up December 1st if the conditions are right. Hoffman: Not likely though. Ruegemer: Not likely. Ryan: Well see you’re trying to appease all the crazies that are driving around early December looking for outdoor ice. Hoffman: There’s a reason you don’t find it. Kelly: So does anybody want to put it to the question or put it to the question with wording changes? Carron: Well I’ll make a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation to approve the updated skating rink policy to include the operations at the Chanhassen Rec Center beyond February 20th if weather permits. Kelly: Is there a second? Ryan: Second. Boettcher: Second. Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 14 Kelly: It’s been offered and seconded. Carron moved, Ryan seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the updated Skating Rink Policy to include operations at the Chanhassen Recreation Center beyond February 20th. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. REVIEW BIDS FOR JULY 4TH FIREWORKS CONTRACT, 2014-2016. Ruegemer: Taking a look at the 2014-2016 4th of July fireworks contract, we’re working on a new 3 year contract with that. We just completed in 2013 our previous 3 year contract so in preparing for the upcoming 4th of July celebration, quotes were solicited to 4 different companies to submit some quotes for our annual fireworks display out at Lake Ann Park. We did put out an RFP for quotes to those companies listed with that. With a budgeted amount identified as $23,000. Before the deadline staff member Johnson did talk to all the companies. They seemed interested in supplying those numbers and quotes to us for that 3 year contract. However when the deadline came and left us, we only really had gotten one quote from Pyrotechnic Display and that is the company that we’ve used for 20, over 20 years out at Lake Ann Park. They were the ones that submitted the numbers and a quote for a 3 year contract with that so we’re going to move on with their quote and look for you guys tonight to take a look at those contracts so again they supply the 4th of July display for well over 20 years out at Lake Ann Park. They’ve always really displayed a high level of professionalism. Great safety record and always really offered a wide variety of quality shows and products. They’re really easy to work with and come to expect. They know what to expect from us and we know what to expect from them. They really offer a good mix of large and small shells including really the biggest numbers really are the 6 inch, 8 inch and 10 inch shells so a lot of other companies may do a lot of 3 and 4 inch shells to kind of make up the shell count but we really do get a really nice variety of shells. The bigger shells that really have a lot more impact to our audiences throughout the park. They really throw out Chanhassen. We under estimate how many people view our show annually. They’re parked all over. We have thousands and thousands within the park and they’re parked all over the county roads and across the industrial park, across Highway 5 so looking ahead for that. They did include a 15% bonus for the third year of the contract. They’re always really good at you know kind of having a pre-teaser finale. A mid-season barrage and I think they always do a great job on the finale as well on that. So staff believes that Pyrotechnic Display has provided a very strong quote by fulfilling all the quotes. The quote requirements. Having a good variety and a good balance for the show that included the things that we really identified within that RFP so it’s staff’s recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the 3 year 4th of July contract for the years 2014 through 2016 with Pyrotechnic Display Incorporated in the amount of $23,000 per year. This amount is included in our Fund 1600 Recreation Program budget and the firework display will take place on the, this year on Friday, July 4th at 10:00 p.m. at Lake Ann Park so included with a cover memo is the RFP. The quotes that were submitted back. The contract with Pyrotechnic Display and then just an addendum prepared by our city attorney Mr. Knutson. Kelly: Questions for Jerry. I take it they provide a certificate of insurance for us? Ruegemer: Absolutely. Echternacht: Jerry on $23,000 is a city number that we asked them to come in with? Ruegemer: That’s correct. Echternacht: How’s that number compared to the last 3 years? Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 15 Ruegemer: It’s the same number for the last 3 years. Kelly: Anyone like to propose a motion? Other questions? Carron: I’ll make a motion that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to the City Council the award of a 3 year contract to Pyrotechnic Display for the amount of $23,000 per year including the addendum prepared by the City Attorney. Kelly: Is there a second? Thunberg: Second. Carron moved, Thunberg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council award a three-year contract (2014-2016) to Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. for the provision of 4th of July fireworks in the amount of $23,000 per year, including the addendum prepared by the city attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. GALPIN BOULEVARD TRAIL CONNECTION. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Kelly, members of the commission. The City of Shorewood is constructing a trail from Highway 7 south to the border of Chanhassen and Shorewood along Galpin Boulevard and so we’ve been made aware of that. There’s a 650 foot gap. When the City of Chanhassen built the Galpin Boulevard trail north it stopped at the bottom of the hill at Pheasant Drive and we knew someday that that trail may be extended when Shorewood did bring a trail back towards the city of Chanhassen so instead of leaving that 650 foot gap we would like to ask the City of Shorewood and their engineers, their consulting engineers to include that section in their contract that would be bid probably as an addendum. The City of Chanhassen addendum and then they would award the contract based on the unit quantity that they’re getting on their much larger project in Shorewood and then we would pay those, we would pay those dollars for that trail section. So we would like to include that in your CIP conversation for this year. See if we can’t get a number included in there approved by the council and then the work will likely move forward sometime in 2014 and then that bill would be paid probably advance in 2014 and paid for with that 2015 CIP number. So 650 feet of trail, you know somewhere between $30,000 and $50,000 with the exception if there’s significant walls. Retaining walls then that number would go up. But these are the kind of opportunities, when we constructed many of our trails to the north they led towards Shorewood but we didn’t always reach their border. The one on Powers Boulevard as well. If their Mill Street in Excelsior, there was a trail brought down Mill Street, we’ve got about a one block gap there. It’s probably about 300 feet at that location but you know when people bring trails we would like to match those and so that’s staff’s recommendation that the commission take a look at that as a part of your upcoming CIP process, and some of you are probably familiar with that location. Know where that gap would be. Kelly: Questions for Todd. Scharfenberg: So Todd, Shorewood’s doing that this, they’re having that built this year? Hoffman: If their council approves the road project, it’s a road project and sewer and water and if that’s all approved then they would be out there constructing that this year. Scharfenberg: Okay. And when will we know that? Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 16 Hoffman: Within the next month. Boettcher: How far would Shorewood’s go? Would that go to old Chaska Road? Hoffman: Shorewood’s would stop right at their corporate border with Chanhassen which is right in the middle of the wetland so it’s. Boettcher: Oh okay. Because from where it ends right now going along that hillside there’s probably going to be retaining wall issues because. Hoffman: This trail will go on the east side so it will go up along the wetland. Boettcher: Oh it will go the east side? Hoffman: So right at the bottom of the hill you’ll cross at Pheasant Drive. Boettcher: Okay. Hoffman: There would be a trail crossing there. Pedestrian crossing and then you would continue on the east side into Shorewood. Boettcher: Will the crossing be up far enough because I see people flying down that hill, I mean for safety sake. For visibility. If you have it below the corner you’re going to catch somebody in the middle of the street. Hoffman: Yep. They’re just going, you know the crossing’s going to be where it’s going to be. You’re going to have to as you come down that hill you’re going to have to stop and then take a right and so it’s not an ideal location for a trail crossing but it is you know, in a community full of hills sometimes that’s where they end. Kelly: Other questions. Yeah Todd I think we should have it on our discussions for the CIP. Hoffman: Great, thank you. Kelly: Okay moving right along. I guess we’re now doing the ice rink evaluation and Jerry that falls on you. RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2013/14 ICE SKATING/HOCKEY RINK EVALUATION. Ruegemer: Thank you again Chair Kelly. Just, we probably won’t be going through the whole report with that. There’s a lot of information to go through and just I’ll kind of ask the commission if you guys have any specific questions on the program. Either I or Adam or Todd can answer specific questions. Ryan: I’m just curious what happened with the warming house relationship. I know there were some issues this past year. What’s happening next year? Ruegemer: Good question. You know Mod Space that we had this year were very easy to work with with that. Obviously not having the mobile mini units that we’ve had in the past, those were more ground units. Mod Space was more elevated units that we had this year. Mod Space does have ground units Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 17 within their system but I think the closest ones were in Chicago or something at this point so it seemed like now that there’s been requests for Mod Space to get some of these ground units up there, we’re certainly going to try to work into next year getting some more of those up into this region with that. Mobile Mini is really kind of hurting themselves in the market here because they really do have a great product with that. You know our customers certainly like the ground level units. They’re much easier to get in and out of with that but you know Mod Space again we’re, you know I think they were brand new units this year. Very nice. Great to work with. They delivered when they were supposed to deliver. They picked them up when they were supposed to deliver so you know we have a very nice option with Mod Space and if it doesn’t work out to get ground units then we’ll more than likely continue to use the units that we’ve had this year. Ryan: Which is great. I just know from the times that we were there the elevated ones, and I had talked to Todd, were very difficult for kids to get up and down and a lot of kids slip and fall down so I’m sure you got that feedback and have passed it along but I just want to reiterate the, you know the importance of trying to get the ground units and if not, you know I don’t know what other safety features can be added to them because it’s, especially for little kids that are not comfortable on skates, it’s a little bit dangerous so just wanted to pass that along. Kelly: Thank you Jerry. And Jerry right back to you with the Easter Egg Hunt. 2014 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Ruegemer: 31st annual coming up here April 19th. Right here at City Center Park so hopefully we’ll have great weather this year and if anybody would like to help out that day, we’ll send an email out. We can attach your name to that. Love to have you and I’ll entertain any questions. Kelly: Any questions for Jerry? Carron: Don’t have any white eggs. Hoffman: Any snow. Kelly: Thank you Jerry. RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Sarles: Jerry did you want to give mine? Ruegemer: Yes I’d love to. Kelly: He’s getting so used to this. Sarles: I know, I know. I miss all of my cheerleaders back here but you know I’ll have to get them to come back again sometime. Greetings from the Rec Center. We’ve had a challenging winter as long as everyone else has too. Kind of some facility stuff that’s going on with us. We replaced the sidewalks last summer with our shutdown. Well come this winter, I think it was the week after Christmas, I came to work and you couldn’t open the door so the sidewalk’s heaved at the entry point so it was right at the front door where typically our sidewalk heaves at the beginning of, or had in the past at the beginning of our kind of overhang there. So they came out or we got people, Adam contacted some folks to come out and grind down that sidewalk. My staff person left on a Thursday. Came back to work, he was the opener on Monday morning or Tuesday morning and couldn’t get the door back open again so second Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 18 time they came out. Oh you’ll never have a problem. We’re going to grind this thing down another inch or two. Sure enough next day it’s still moving and so then they made the decision just to take out that whole front slab right in front of the door. Fortunately these guys and the school district, either side built platforms for the time being and then we’re going to re-address the issues come summer when hopefully all the frost is out of the ground. But yeah we’ve had that issue and then just today it started moving again on the other end so we’ll have further conversations with our contractor here so weather is, weather in just Minnesota is wrecking a little bit of havoc on us out there. Also has brought many people inside to the Rec Center. We’ve been extremely busy, which is great to see. All the kids and families and seniors and everybody in so it’s been great out there. Earlier this month we actually had a broken back board. You know it’s just a circumstances, situation. It’s the first in my tenure here at the Rec Center so I think the last one happened about 7 years ago. You know a young family had lowered the hoop and no sooner did they walk off the court did another junior or high school kid came running down and dunked on the hoop and just took down the, took it down so fortunately again Adam and his crew to the rescue along with the school district. We had a back up back board in storage and within 2 days it was up and running again and we’re back to full courts so, so it’s been some different things going on at the Rec Center lately. As far as facility usage, our community gym hours were turned over to the community. Anybody could bid for those times. All athletic organizations. The only one we got using this year was the West Metro Warriors which is a Special Olympics basketball team and they have 14 I think, or 38 Friday night hours so this year so it’s a great group. They’ve been working with us for 2 years now. And then of course you’ve seen the pickleballers talking about their two leagues that are running at the Rec Center now so that’s fun to see them. They’re extremely competitive. They’re just a great group of guys and women too. Dance for Fun, we’re in our last session of dance for the 2013-14 season. We’re going to have a big spring recital here May 10th at the Chanhassen High School. Right now our 22 classes are continuing as well as a father daughter dance and not to be outdone this year we added a mother daughter dance so, so it’s a fun program to be running. Little update on Rec Center Sports. Logan Godfrey was hired as our Rec Center Sports Coordinator in January. He had worked previously with Osseo Community Ed. Has a Park and Rec Degree from Minnesota State Mankato and he’s brought some great energy to the position here for us so we, the folks are over there playing basketball right now, or just finished up. But right now we’ve had about 12 sessions of Small Fry Sports this year with 139 kids. That was between soccer, football, track and field and basketball. And then we’re into floor hockey next, golf, soccer and t-ball upcoming. It’s a great program. That’s one we’ve been able to over the past year really grow and increase time and usage for those little guys and little girls playing. Lil’ Star Sports, the age is 4 to 6. We had 32 kids play in the floor hockey group and now we have 80 kids playing basketball so that’s a fun program and we’re already taking registrations for spring soccer so, I told them not to expect outdoors but we’ll see. Depending. Again the Spring Boutique is going to, this is our 3rd annual Spring Boutique. It’s going to be April 26th so that’s one that anybody that does handcrafted items or commercial items, I think we’re over 20 vendors by now that have now registered for that program. And then Sunday, this Sunday as far as a big, my big commercial here is our indoor garage sale at the Rec Center so that runs from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. It’s free to attend. I think we have 25 tables right now so people selling things so it’s a nice little program for us and brings plenty of people in to see what the Rec Center is about. Like I mentioned the Spring Boutique and then the May 10th spring recital for the Dance for Fun so you’re welcome to come join for any and all activities here for the Rec Center. And with that I’ll entertain any questions or comments you might have. Kelly: Questions for Jodi. Ryan: Well I think there’s two, two offers of congratulations. One, great reporting. Great job on everything that’s going on at the Rec Center. And the second congratulation is on your engagement. Sarles: Oh wow, thank you. Let that one out of the bag huh? Thank you. Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 19 Kelly: Thank you Jodi for the great job you continue to do over at the Rec Center. Sarles: Thank you. SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Kelly: Sue, you’re on deck. Actually you’re at the batter’s box. Bill: At the batter’s box, good. Well I was going to mention that a little funny story about Jodi’s engagement, I was on a trip with our seniors and we’re at the Day Tripper’s Theater in Richfield. A new venue and they’re announcing the different clubs and all of a sudden a gentleman gets up and he goes and we’d like to congratulate Jodi Sarles on her recent engagement. Her mother Spike is in the audience and everyone’s cheering and so the word got out all around. It’s big news with Jodi so, anyway. We’ve heard a lot about the weather tonight. The winter took a toll on activities at the Senior Center. There were normal activities, people were just not coming out as much in addition to the people going south for the winter. There were attendance was lower at a lot of the regular activities. I think a few weeks ago, a nice Monday we had 3 weeks ago I went up to Todd’s office and I’m like they’re back. They’re back. It was Monday bridge and there were 13 tables. 52 people and that was high so really it got off to a slower start but our special events have been going good. I think Cole you were at our Annual Bake Potato Bar and, or was the JFK or? Kelly: Lincoln. Bill: Lincoln one and that’s always a really popular event and once again KleinBank is sponsoring our Lifelong Learning programs. I think it’s the eighth year that they’re doing that and one of the representatives from KleinBank was there and it was really nice to have them. Our Senior Advisory Board elections were completed last week. There are 8 people on the Senior Advisory Board and they basically advise me on programs and activities they’d like to see at the Senior Center. They run on 2 year terms and I think we had 5 applicants this year which is a good number and out of those 5, 3 of them were people that have been new in the last couple years to the Senior Center so bringing that new blood in is always something that we welcome. And I had a mini-retreat last June with the Senior Advisory Board and it’s taken me a while but they suggested we develop a brochure that can be used for new people in town and at our last Advisory Board meeting a couple people volunteered to look into with the Welcome Wagons or get them to churches. Other things. Other places where seniors gathered so the winter, you know a little slower afforded me the opportunity to start drafting that brochure and hopefully I’ll get it done within oh, the next month or so and then we’ll use that for additional marketing in the community. So that’s all I have to offer tonight. If anyone has any questions. Kelly: Questions for Sue. I know being at the Lincoln Assassination Luncheon, of course that was a full house that day and it was a wonderful program and thank you for all the wonderful programming you’re doing. Bill: Thank you. PARK & TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Beers: Thank you Chair Kelly and the rest of the commission. Not to keep bringing up skating rinks and cold weather but I’m going to start with a little bit of that. From a maintenance standpoint the rinks actually went pretty well. We had some cold weather early on which allowed us to get a good base started, which we were able to sustain throughout the winter which is always the goal so despite the you know never ending snowfalls, we were able to kind of keep at it so overall it was a pretty good year I Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 20 would say. Next I’ve been kind of talking with Todd and a few other neighboring cities about central control irrigation systems so I’ve been trying to do as much homework as I can to figure out how we can implement a system like that in Chanhassen so I’ve been putting some numbers together. Meeting with some vendors. Talking about some options. I have a meeting tomorrow with the Superintendent from the City of Plymouth who’s had a system like this in place for I think 6 or 7 years so interested to see how that plays out and some information I can gather from him. Sentence to Serve folks are going to be coming out second week of April tentatively, depending if we get some weather to work with us. We’ve been staying in touch with them to make sure we can adjust schedules if we need to so that’s always a huge labor saver for our staff. Focus on the fire station. City Hall. Library. It kind of helps us get a jump start on the spring clean-up. Other than that we’ve been pecking away at some just miscellaneous projects throughout the shop. Did a little spring cleaning at the Lake Ann facility, which always feels good. Get some nice weather and get the doors opened up. Jim has been going through some of our small equipment, getting all of our weed whips, vac back blowers, basically anything that we’re using throughout the summer months ready to go for the season. We are starting, weather depending again to attack some trail tree pruning. Just trying to get, allow some snow to melt down so it’s a little safer for our guys to get out there. And other than that like I said we’ve been just kind of pecking away at some smaller projects. Getting stuff ready for the changing of the seasons so, that’s about all I got. Any questions? Kelly: Couple years ago Dale told us that the Sentence to Serve might go away because of the costs that the Sentence to Serve people had getting the people here and then it didn’t go away and of course you’re telling us it’s still here. Are you hearing any rumbles from them or is it going to stay a strong program or do you. Beers: I haven’t heard any rumblings yet. As far as I know we’ve been doing it for 20 plus years and it’s been going great so I’m just going to keep pressing on until I hear otherwise. Kelly: Other questions? Transition going well for you? Beers: It’s been going well. Everyday’s a new battle. I’ve got a great staff around me with these guys and down at the public works building. Dean’s been a huge help. Having a guy like that with his experience has been, has made my life easier I guess. All the guys have been pretty supportive. They’re a pretty well oiled machine when it comes to snow removal and the hockey rinks. I can just turn them loose and they know what to do so that’s always, it helps getting through each day so. Kelly: Good. I’m glad. Beers: ….transition and I’m glad to be here. Kelly: Good. We’re glad you’re here too. Thank you. Beers: Appreciate it. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Kelly: Todd, I think we’re going to talk a little bit about the administration section tonight. Normally we don’t. We had a meeting a couple weeks ago. It looks like you have information in there about that meeting. Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 21 Hoffman: I don’t know if there’s any other commission member reports. We had a playground meeting Luke, you want to talk about that? Thunberg: So I think Todd forwarded the email. Next time I’ll include you guys in the first one. So on Thursday we are meeting with Bill Johnson from the playground equipment company. They were, his design was the chosen equipment at a neighborhood meeting a week or so ago. We had about 30 plus neighbors come in. Review the different proposals and pretty overwhelmingly selected the one, it’s the same company that built the Riley Ridge Park. And so we’re meeting with Bill on Thursday at 5:30 at the Legion. It sounds like he’s able to present some color samples and kind of do things on his laptop to show it so the neighbors are invited again to come and help select the colors that will go in for the park and then I think from there, the process starts so you’re welcome to join us if you’d like at the Legion. Hoffman: Thursday at 5:30. Kelly: Thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Hoffman: In the administrative packet we have a variety of items from Feb Fest temperatures to the discussion on future programs which I think that sheet you can save for your CIP conversation. So there’s been a variety of ideas that were generated at our meeting back earlier in the month, on the second Tuesday this past month so we have all the items listed and some general budget estimates included as a part of that. Also be an opportunity to talk with the City Council at your joint meeting coming up. I’m not sure when that’s scheduled just yet, to talk about some of these ideas. The Bandimere Park expansion is another item that’s not included in that list, and then Boulder Cove, if you take a look at that. That was a significant cash contribution to your park dedication fund. $179,800 and that’s a nice new housing development that’s going north of Highway 7 near the crossing with Minnewashta Parkway so these folks will have access to Cathcart Park, which is a park which is mutually presented by the cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen. Cathcart Park is owned by the City of Shorewood and generally maintained but we have done mowing and then trimming of the trees at that location since Chanhassen residents utilize the park as well. For many years Shorewood did all the maintenance and then they, about 20 years ago came to a park board meeting and said, your citizens use it as well. Would you offer some maintenance and so that was the agreement at that time. That we would mow the grass and trim the trees. Then about halfway through that agreement their park supervisor said, you know it’s just easier for us to mow. We’re here so they’ve been mowing it for now about the past 10 years but that’s the park that these again Chanhassen residents will have direct access to. It’s within about a quarter block from this site. And then Arbor Day, please come out to Riley Ridge Park on May 3rd and plant some trees with the neighbors. So we’ll be out there. That’s the last item on your Admin Packet. One other note, the interest of the commission on April 14th, that will be a big night for our City Council at the work session with park and recreation items and so as a part of their key financial strategies, their KFS strategies they have athletic field lighting and the cost benefit analysis of that and so staff has prepared a report for that work session. I’ll email that to you at the same time it goes out to the City Council and so we’ll be presenting that cost benefit analysis. Generally what it shows very strongly is that, adding additional fields is costly. Over $500 per field over a 40 year lifespan. Whereas lighting is closer to about $75 per game per field and so really the best way to increase game availability in our community is to add additional light. Athletic field lighting. Not add additional fields. And if you study some national standards on how many fields we have, we currently have fields, typically well above the national standards so soccer fields, softball and baseball, the number of fields we currently have in our park system. So we’ll take a look at that and then the other item is the neighborhood park shelter initiative which is an item that the council added to the budget so that’s proposed for $100,000 per year in general fund excess dollars to build 14 picnic shelters across our community over the next 5 years and we’ll be presenting an item on that topic that evening. And then on Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 22 the consent agenda for the regular meeting on April 14th is the Pioneer Pass Park playground and park shelter budget and then the budget amendment increasing that overall budget by the $27,000. So if you’re available April 14th, the work session starts at 5:30. You’re welcome to sit in and listen to that conversation with staff and the council and then the regular meeting starts at 7:00. Kelly: Todd I want to go backwards a little bit. Hoffman: Sure. Kelly: To what we had our discussion a couple weeks ago. About the idea list and then we actually had the big Bandimere presentation which we really haven’t talked about and of course this is just a summary because we weren’t taking, no one was taking notes but I think Rick has a question on the summary Minutes. Hoffman: Sure. Echternacht: Todd on the architect that was there, I was thinking he was going to go over to Lake Ann and take a look at where that dome maybe would go. I thought there was some conversation that you had mentioned to him to go take a look at the space but maybe I was incorrect in that. Hoffman: Yeah what, my comments at the end of the meeting was that the Bandimere expansion plan is in our current CIP. Echternacht: Okay. Hoffman: Talking about Lake Ann, doing any improvements is not at Lake Ann so that would just be something, a concept you would want to bring up to the City Council at your joint meeting. Echternacht: Okay. Hoffman: We currently have no planning dollars programmed to talk about a bubble or talk about expansions at Lake Ann so that’s something we won’t be doing. Echternacht: Okay. So we’re not talking. Then a referendum maybe or? Hoffman: That’s up to you. That’s up to your conversation with the City Council. You know that’s a topic of conversation you want to have with the council at your work session so this list has been generated and you have the Bandimere expansion plan which is underway. You’ve got that open house coming up with the neighborhood to talk about that so our charge out of that meeting will be to take your ideas that you talked about. Come up with a concept plan that includes all those ideas at Bandimere and then present those at the neighborhood open house. You’ll hear from the neighbors. You know how do the neighbors respond to that? What do they think about those plans and then move that into a City Council conversation. It will come, after the neighborhood meeting the Bandimere conversation will come back to this room one more time with the park board. You’ll make any modifications to that recommendation based on what you heard from the neighbors and then send that to the City Council whatever your final recommendation is. But the Lake Ann conversation would have to be something you would want to bring up at your joint meeting with the City Council to see if they’re interested in that topic or not. Echternacht: Okay. Because if we had, if there was a referendum would the Bandimere be rolled into that? Is that something that could be rolled in rather than using these other funds or? Park and Recreation Commission – March 25, 2014 23 Hoffman: The financing for Bandimere’s currently unknown so it could be a variety of different funding sources. Currently unknown. It could be a referendum or it could be other dollars. Echternacht: Okay. Kelly: Yeah and I noticed on the list we did list an athletic dome as part of the wish list. Echternacht: Okay. Kelly: Any other questions? Anybody want to call the question? Carron moved, Echternacht seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim