The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2005 08 08 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, and Bob Generous PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Thank you for joining us. Those here this evening as well as those watching at home. We’re very glad that you did. We’d like to start with consideration of the agenda. Are there any changes or modifications to the agenda as distributed with the council packet? If not, then without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as distributed without objection. A couple public announcements this evening. We’d like to make people aware of the first is an invitation to all residents and businesses for Chanhassen Day at the th Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. A week from this coming Friday on August 19 will be the second annual Chanhassen Day at the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum here in town. Admission will be free to all Chanhassen residents and the first 200 visitors will receive a free copy of our Centennial History book. As well at 10:00 a.m. there’ll be a welcome for everyone there. Complimentary donuts and coffee will be served. The Landscape Arboretum is one of the crown jewels of our city and again this is the second year that we’ll be having Chanhassen Day. I’d like to formally thank the Landscape Arboretum for their hospitality and those on the Environmental Commission, Park and Rec Commission that will be out there assisting during the day. I would encourage people to come out. It’s one of those features that many of us go to from time to time but just when you’re, if you live in New York and never visited the Statute of Liberty, this can be the same thing here. There’s a lot to see out there. There’s a walking tour. There’ll be a tram that will take people around the 3 mile drive. There’s a bird walk. As I said, there’s a number of activities throughout the day. I would hope that everyone will take advantage of this opportunity, a week from this coming Friday on August th 19. I’d also like to share some information for the following day, a week from this Saturday, th August 20. That will be the second annual Race for Kids Miracle, provided by the Miracles for Mitch Foundation. It will be out at Lake Ann Park in the morning. The race starts in the morning. Early and information can be gathered on the Miracle Kids Triathlon.org web site. This is put on by the Miracles for Mitch Foundation which is a local foundation established by the Chepokas family in honor their son Mitch who died a couple years ago at a very young age. So last year there were about 300 children that ran in this triathlon. My understanding is they already have over 500 registered for this coming year and they’re taking applications so if you’re interested in having your children participate, want to watch the event yourself, I would encourage you to do so. All the children that run there wear the number 1. All the children that run there have the name on their leg for a child who isn’t able to run. It’s a wonderful City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 foundation. They do a great job and I would encourage everyone to try to be a part of it. I’d like to move now to our consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA:Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendation: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 25, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 25, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 19, 2005 b. Approve Expenditure of Funds for Trunk Watermain Improvements in the Highcrest Meadows Development, Project Nos. 05-07, 05-08, 05-09. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. E. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGNATED SHOOTING AREAS IN THE CITY. Councilman Lundquist: As we discussed in work session, I think looking between the proposed and the current, not that big of a change in those areas and I still believe with the constraints that we have in place with landowner permission required and those things that there’s no need to make a change there. Certainly will be in the future as this area develops, but I don’t see any eminent danger and therefore no reason to reduce that for several reasons, so I would vote against that amendment with the intention of leaving the areas the way they are currently. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any other discussion on this item? I know we talked about this in our work session. I think the, because of development, the number of areas to the north of Lyman are really limited to one or two. I know that these are areas that I received calls from residents on and I think as we originally proposed by staff was to move it down to the hunting south of the current 212, down by the river. I would concur with your Councilman Lundquist that that might not be necessary at this time. That day is probably coming but I don’t think it’s here. But I think south of Lyman designation is a fair compromise for reasons that you stated as well as where we are right now in terms of our city growth. So, but I’m open to thoughts and comments from other members of the council as well. Councilman Lundquist: I would say that in response to that, that moving the, by eliminating Mr. Klingelhutz’ property behind his barn, and moving that a couple hundred yards, the impact of those residents complaint is still going to be there. People are still going to be calling. Whether you’re standing on the other side of Lyman or standing behind Al’s barn, people are still going to hear those shot guns so I’m not sure that you’re accomplishing anything there except limiting those practices that can provide some benefit to us. 2 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts? Councilman Peterson: My only thoughts are, if that will kill. I shouldn’t say, if it will remove more geese, then I am apt to approve Mr. Lundquist but I don’t know whether or not that would substantially alleviate that… I don’t know, staff can you comment on that? Is that going to affect? Do we take out a lot of geese during geese season with this? Todd Gerhardt: I believe in the past that field has had a crop on it and so I think that had a factor in it. Now a large portion of that area will not have crops because of 212 going through there. But we do take out a substantial amount of geese in that area and in the past years we have. This year I’m sure there’s still some areas. I think the Klingelhutz farm closer towards North Bay is still has a crop on it so, and that was an area that was opened up last year so. There will still be geese in that area and you will see a reduction in them, yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do we have a count of the number of permits that are issued for those areas? Todd Hoffman: I don’t have Councilwoman Tjornhom, I don’t have an exact number but it’s probably around 75 to 100 permits that are issued each year for these different areas. One suggestion I may make, if you would like to leave the map the way it currently is, they still have to have either landowner or tenant signatures and MnDot happens to be the tenant of that particular piece of land owner and there is no farming going on and there’ll be nobody to sign a permit in that location. Councilman Lundquist: Effectively it removes it anyway. Todd Hoffman: It removes it anyway so, if you want to leave the map as is currently. Wait for the future development to take those areas out, then staff would be willing to work with that as well. Mayor Furlong: And maybe that solution as well, the development itself to take it out. The issue’s still going to be the annoyance of residents in some areas but if you’d like to try that, eliminate it if we can but we may only be a year away from it anyway. Councilman Lundquist: People don’t like geese crapping in their yard either. Mayor Furlong: So at this point is there any action at this point that the council wants to take. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we leave the map as is and the existing conditions of requiring landowner or tenant approval for those permits as currently is. So perhaps that means just removing this item from the agenda and… Mayor Furlong: You want to just table the item? Councilman Labatt: I just want to say a couple comments. 3 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Sure, go ahead. Councilman Labatt: How much of this land does MnDot own? Bottom line. Todd Hoffman: How much, the whole corridor. Councilman Labatt: So if MnDot owns it and they’re not going to get permission, then let’s just make it for ease of enforcement sake, everything north like we’ve just proposed here, no hunting so that if people go out there and hunt, it’s as clear as mud that the ordinance says no hunting north of Lyman. I mean I can’t believe we’re sitting here. Todd Hoffman: It’s not, Councilman some of these areas that are owned by MnDot may still be farmed and the road may not affect them this fall, the construction, so that’s what I think what you’re saying. You can still hunt, some of the road right-of-way is still going to be cornfields. Councilman Labatt: We’re trying to put a postage stamp here where a person can hunt out there in a small little parcel and it might be just easier, the ease of it just to say no hunting north of Lyman Boulevard. So that’s all my comment. Councilman Lundquist: I would move to table item 1(e). Mayor Furlong: Motion made. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to table the amendment to the designated shooting areas in the city. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt and Mayor Furlong who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD; CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE 05-23. Public Present: Name Address Abby Wilson 2332 Stone Creek Drive Ron Blum 2081 Stone Creek Drive 4 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Gene Kruchoski 2030 Boulder Road Dan Luna 2483 Bridle Creek Trail Rodney Melton 2413 Bridle Creek Trail Mark & Chris Fischer 2407 Bridle Creek Trail Gayleen & Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Boulevard Jeff & Dee McGuire 2272 Stone Creek Lane East Dean Held 2230 Stone Creek Lane East Ben Merriman 8156 Mallory Court Helen & Gary Schock 2309 Boulder Road Peter & LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail Kevin DiLorenzo 2382 Stone Creek Lane West Barry LaBounty 2421 Bridle Creek Trail Thor Smith 2139 Boulder Road Amina Linkous 2208 Boulder Road Drew Dingman 2403 Bridle Creek Trail Mike Wright 2280 Boulder Road Rodney Melton 2413 Bridle Creek Trail Joel Lehrke 2329 Boulder Road Craig Johnson 2450 Bridle Creek Trail Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a hearing regarding, there’s two parts to it. First there’s the rezoning. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate. It’s guided in the comprehensive plan for office industrial uses. Under that land use. The appropriate zonings in the city code are either in IOP, Industrial Office Park or a Planned Unit Development. The applicant originally submitted a plan using an IOP concept. Upon initial review of that staff recommended that they proceed through a Planned Unit Development so that we could encourage and massage the project to save additional trees and topography in this site, so they came back and we were able to get the plat that’s before you tonight. The rezoning from A2 to PUD. As part of the PUD the city establishes specific design standards for this project. We start with the IOP district regulations and we sort of distilled it down. In this instance we removed most of the auto related uses. We incorporated all of the design standards that we have for conditional uses and IOP and made them permitted uses subject to city approval. We’ve developed this based on other projects that we’ve had in the community. We think that we have provided some safeguards for the abutting property owners as well as providing good guidelines for the developer. We anticipate a quality development and this developer has come through under IOP zoning and done a good job on like Lake Susan, the business park on Lake Drive. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning from A2 to PUD subject to approval of the plat. The second part of this project is the preliminary plat. This development would create 8 lots for development and 3 outlots. Outlots A and B contain wetlands and storm water ponds. Outlot C is the preserved area that we were able to maintain as part of this industrial development. It contains a significant stand of trees on the topographic separation from the east to the west. The outlot, one of the conditions of approval for the plat is either that they place a conservation easement over the outlot or dedicate it to the city for open space surfaces. The subdivision itself is straight forward. The 8 lots would be accessed by a private street that connects to Galpin Boulevard at Stone Creek Drive. We did look originally at providing access to Lyman Boulevard but the County directed the applicant to access off of 5 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Galpin only. So that’s where the road connection came in. The applicant as part of the review process has worked on enhancing the buffering along Galpin Boulevard in the northern property line. In some instances they doubled the area of landscaping that’s provided. It should be noted that the northern part of the site is approximately 17 feet lower than Galpin Boulevard at that area, and then it comes up and it’s at grade at the entrance into the site. The southern property is slightly above Galpin Boulevard. We are working with the developer to try to lower that one site so that Lots 1 and 2 on the south side of the project can share a common truck area that would screen their loading docks between the two buildings and provide a nice space on the perimeter of the site. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report. As part of the preliminary plat and the grading plan there are wetland fillings that are taking place primarily in the pasture area on the east side but then there’s some small wetlands that are scattered in the western portion of the site. They are providing wetland mitigation adjacent to the existing wetland in the southwest corner and they will be providing storm water ponding to treat the storm water within the development. Staff is also recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Bob you talked about some safeguards that staff had put in based on other IOP’s and things throughout the city. Can you talk specifically what those are? Bob Generous: Well primarily it’s the separation and the landscaping requirements on the perimeter of the site. Additionally each of these lots will come in for site plan approval on an individual basis. At that time we’ll look at additional screening for any truck areas or loading docks so that we can anticipate providing some noise attenuation for perimeter property. Also we’re preserving through the PUD process that large outlot piece, approximately 4 acres and that in itself will add to screen this development and create a different environment than you would normally see under an industrial park. Generally when these come in they flatten the whole site so they can set their large pads in, but they’ve tried to maintain some of the topography and through the use of retaining walls created that area. Councilman Lundquist: And the options for this zoning IOP or PUD, the IOP, is it accurate that the IOP zoning has much more of a, oh say industrial park feeling to it and not more of an office park? Bob Generous: That’d be correct, yes. Councilman Lundquist: And so who, does the developer choose or request the PUD or IOP or how did we arrive at PUD rather than IOP? Bob Generous: We negotiated with them. As they originally came in, we looked at their first plan and Outlot C was another industrial lot at that time. We suggested that they work on ways to preserve more of the natural area on the site. Through the PUD we’re able to transfer intensity of development. Give more impervious surface on some of the lots by keeping this lot open and 6 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 so we were able to, and primarily they were looking in the southern part of the site to increase the impervious area from 70% to above. Councilman Lundquist: Pushing the impervious down towards Lyman rather than towards Trotters Ridge. Bob Generous: Right. Correct. Kate Aanenson: Can I just further state that the IOP is permitted. I mean the straight IOP zoning which is a permitted and is consistent with the comprehensive plan so if they did request that, we suggested the PUD and the developer agreed to go that direction but either zoning district is consistent with the guiding of industrial in the comprehensive plan. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor. Bob, if you could, one of the main I think problems people are having is the entrance and exit off of this park, and if you could just go over briefly you know the process with MnDot and really what power or control we have as a council in deciding how, what happens and you know where we go from here. Bob Generous: Well I think Paul would be better at that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, so I don’t mean to put you on the spot but I mean that really seems to be a hot button and if you could address it. Paul Oehme: We did have several conversations with the County and the County has jurisdiction over both Galpin and Lyman. They’re both A minor arterial roadway sections. Roadways out there, and Lyman Boulevard, from the County’s perspective is a corridor they would like to maintain. Or eliminate as much access points as possible along that corridor. The traffic counts projecting traffic counts for the future of that roadway indicate that the amount of access points along that roadway should be limited just because of the east/west traffic getting to and from the west side of town into Chaska and back onto potentially 212. That’s where they anticipate a lot of traffic to be heading. So eliminating access points where they’re not warranted or they’re hard to justify if there’s not a T intersection, that’s where the County has had issues. Our current ordinance also does try to limit access points on arterial collector roadways as well to a quarter mile of distance, so we’re trying to follow our code and then also the County’s requirements and recommendations for the separate corridor. Councilman Lundquist: Paul, how far between Galpin and Norex? Paul Oehme: About 1,900 feet I believe. th Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so that’s not quite half a mile. 4/10 of a mile or something. th 3/10 of a mile. 7 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 th Paul Oehme: Yeah, it’s about 3/10 of a mile. And the newer intersection point, if you refer back to the site plan, would potentially be about 1,000 feet away from Galpin Boulevard, and the property south of this property under consideration tonight would, if that develop would have access off of Galpin, so that property, if and when it would develop would have access off of Galpin and out not have an access farther to the west. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, just for clarification, when you say it has access off of Galpin. Is the access going to come at the intersection of Galpin and Lyman? Paul Oehme: Galpin at the T there. Mayor Furlong: Okay, where the T is now will become a 4 way. Paul Oehme: We would not anticipate another access for that property so this site at potentially new access points for the site. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, that’s okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: The residents had mentioned the timeliness of traffic studies. Can you walk us through when it was completed and not only what…shelf life of those are? Paul Oehme: Sure. Well we did look at traffic volumes based upon trip generations that are typically standard for these type of developments. We looked at that. Bob Generous: Well using a worst case scenario for development we did provide an upper level of what the trip in’s would be. A trip in is both entering and exiting so it could be someone going and leaving in the same…but as part of the comprehensive plan we did look at this area as an office industrial site in conjunction with the rest of the city and the land use have been changed for this. As property has been developed, so we anticipated that it would be within the same parameters of this. Normally for industrial development if they reach 1,000, a million square feet in building area, then they trip the threshold for requiring an EAW. We felt that this project was small enough and that the projected traffic and potential increase was within the parameters of our study. Of our comprehensive plan. Paul Oehme: So we did look at trip generations for this new development. We also looked at existing trip generations within our own city comparables and we looked at Chanhassen Business Park First Addition off of Audubon and looked at traffic volumes that are currently generated and are really close to what potentially could be eventually built out at this time at this location and the trip generations at the existing site are extremely close to what we were anticipating for the new site to be so we’re confident on the traffic volumes that we have estimated for this site. 8 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Paul, wasn’t that number your trip generation estimate right now for this development was about 2,600 cars per day. Is that what you were estimating? Paul Oehme: Between 24 and 26 depending upon full build out. What exactly would go in. Todd Gerhardt: And then our short little traffic counts that we took at Chan Business Center, didn’t they come in about 2,400? Paul Oehme: 24 and we did a two day count there. Todd Gerhardt: So I think those two, I think Chan Business Center has about 345,000 square feet of office industrial space today and this development has about 350,000 future development once it’s fully developed out. Would generate about the same number of trips so they’re good comparisons. Paul Oehme: And we would anticipate a lot of this traffic, truck traffic and potential worker traffic to be coming from Lyman Boulevard onto Galpin. Once 212’s built, that seems to be a logical corridor for truck and worker traffic to get back and forth to the proposed development because it is a major thoroughfare to downtown, to east of there and also west. Councilman Lundquist: So those counts that you did at the Chan Business Park, you took the counters out in the last week or two and put them out? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. The counters that we took do not indicate vehicle type though. We don’t have that capability. Councilman Lundquist: You’re just counting how many times the tires go across the hose. Paul Oehme: Exactly. Todd Gerhardt: You know and depending on the uses that go in here, you’ve got the postal service trucks coming in and going so that may be a little higher volume than what you would see but you know on an average I think it’s a pretty good indication of what you would see for traffic on this development. I think those are the estimates that we used when we put the comprehensive plan in. Those are the numbers that we used in planning for the upgrade of Galpin to the state it is today. There’s also going to be plans in the near future of looking at Lyman Boulevard upgrade to an urban section, similar to what you see on Galpin. Paul Oehme: And potential signals at intersections as well. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Councilman Peterson: There’s been some discussion about the buffer between Galpin and… and where it stands today. If those would be extended it seems as though you’re saving that 9 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 additional hard wood trees on the east, on the west side of the project. How is the buffer currently? I’m just trying to envision. Bob Generous: They’re showing a 50 foot buffer area from the property line to the parking lot. What the developer said is that anything that comes off of the east side they’re going to take out as Outlot C to make up for it so once they start moving north, they’re going into the grade too so they don’t want to go any farther than if they try to maintain a 3 to 1 slope. Right now they’re looking at the installation of a retaining wall along the end of Outlot C to stop the grading. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Bob, where are we on the number of stories for some of these buildings? Bob Generous: Well their plans only project that they’ll have one story, and within the design standards we provided for up to 3 stories and 40 feet. Under the industrial office park zoning, the permitted intensity is 4 stories and 50 feet. Councilman Peterson: Have you discussed with the developer the option of limiting it to two? Bob Generous: Yes we have and I’ll let him address his response to it if you don’t mind. Mayor Furlong: Anything else at this time? Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: So Bob in page 2 of your report, the second paragraph towards the end there it says City Council can revise the design standards for building heights for Lots 1, 6 and 8 to 2 stories and 30 feet to address neighbors concerns. So we can. Bob Generous: You can change it. You could say go up to 4 or you could say go down to 1. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then in the Planning Commission summary on point 54. Your point was to follow the city code and have a 150 foot setback from the northeast corner, or on the northeast corner abutting Lot 6. I figure those are the 3 or 4 first homes in Trotters Ridge. That corner that we’re talking about, correct? Bob Generous: That is correct. Councilman Labatt: Okay. So they’re recommending the 100 foot setback. Next paragraph down is staff believes that the recommended 100 foot setback buffer to the north complies with the city code. So you’ve got two interpretations of the same part of the code. Bob Generous: Right. The ordinance says that if the buffer yard is satisfactory to City Council, they can reduce the required buffer by half so the 100 foot width complies with the ordinance. Councilman Labatt: And so, you’re inferring that there’s a buffer, it is the natural vegetation and that stuff? 10 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Bob Generous: Partially and berming and screening. Landscaping that they’re going to provide along that northwest, northeast corner of the site. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then Lot 6, as mentioned earlier is 17 feet below the grade of Galpin. Is going to be a finished grade, correct? Bob Generous: Yes. The finished floor elevation they’re proposing. Councilman Labatt: So if we take it from Galpin, and Lot 6 the finished grade is 17 feet below so, and we put a 30 foot building on there, you’re looking at 13 feet above the grade of Galpin. Bob Generous: Right. Councilman Labatt: And how does that coincide that grade of Galpin to the grade of Trotters Ridge, the first 4 or 5 homes? I mean I couldn’t find my grading plan so. Bob Generous: They’re about 965 approximately. For the house locations. Galpin is higher then them also. It’s 974 approximately right at the southwest. Southeast corner of Lot 1. Councilman Labatt: So Galpin is 9? Councilman Lundquist: 9 feet higher than the houses. Bob Generous: The first one may be built into that. We don’t have the pads… Councilman Labatt: Then the height of the berm that they’re proposing is like? Bob Generous: 6 feet. Councilman Lundquist: On the Galpin side or. Councilman Labatt: No, on the north. On the north side. What if we asked them to double that? Bob Generous: Then you’d have a 12 foot berm. Councilman Labatt: They can provide the grade and the slope and all that. Bob Generous: Right. They could meet the 3 to 1. Our only concern has been, and it’s one of the conditions that we looked at addressing any drainage that would result from that. Councilman Labatt: I’ll come back to that point. That’s all I have for right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Couple things I’d like to go back over, just to make sure from an understanding standpoint. Changes in the design that have occurred since the Planning Commission, just so we are aware if there’s something that they saw at the Planning Commission but it’s not there now. Can you summarize for us what changes have occurred. 11 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Bob Generous: The primary one is that they’ve enhanced the landscaping along the north and east property lines. I don’t, I just got this plan today so I don’t know a count but visually looking at it, it looked at least on the south part that they have a double row of trees instead of the single that was originally shown. Mayor Furlong: You said south part. This is up along? Bob Generous: On Galpin. Mayor Furlong: On Galpin down and then. Bob Generous: Adjacent to Lot 1. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Bob Generous: And they would blend that in with the existing trees. Also what they don’t show is that we’re going to try to lower Lot 1 approximately 5 feet so that we don’t have a retaining wall between Lot 1 and 2. Most likely that retaining wall should go over to the eastern side of the site, but we’ll see that as part of any final construction plan. Mayor Furlong: In terms of land use, we have residential neighborhoods to the north, to the east of this site. It’s guided for this purpose. First question I have is the property to the south of Lyman directly south of this property, the nursery. Kate Aanenson: Holasek’s. Mayor Furlong: Holasek’s. What is that guided? Bob Generous: Office industrial. Mayor Furlong: So the same use is being proposed here. Bob Generous: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And in terms of changes as we think about traffic in the comprehensive plan in this area, what changes have occurred in land use guiding that you’re aware of and… Kate Aanenson: Actually the most significant one in this area was the school district. They bought a piece of property that was also guided industrial and the city has received numerous requests over the years to change that to multi family and stood firm on the industrial. In looking at the school needs and trying to possibly make a high school, that was at the time the talk, the District 112 they look at a high school and the City Council agreed for that purpose only, that if it didn’t become a school that they would rezone it back to this industrial. But that was the other significant one in this area. 12 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: And refresh my memory when we were looking at, because I think we were dealing with traffic in the AUAR for the 2005 MUSA area and now it’s the school site is outside of that but we were looking at school site and an industrial commercial site as one or the other within the 2005. What were the traffic patterns between the two? I mean the fact that that’s now a school versus potentially commercial, is that going to be generating more or less traffic… Kate Aanenson: In the AUAR we’ve looked at, and that would be just for everybody’s clarification, that’d be the area south of Lyman. Here’s Lyman to Pioneer. Future Powers and Audubon. About 600 acres in there. We actually looked at a 30 acre school in that site and the AUAR, or the traffic study as a part of that environmental assessment actually determined that the school would probably be equivalent to the industrial trips generated. A lot of it has to do with the type of school. If it’s high school, that obviously has more trips because more drivers. As opposed to the elementary which has the least amount of trips because most of those kids are bussed. So there’s more parents… Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that site could still, I mean obviously the school district owns it. The intention is to build a school. So but the traffic out there is not going to be expected to be significantly different. Kate Aanenson: Than if it would be an industrial park. Mayor Furlong: Had it been industrial which is still possible. Kate Aanenson: Right. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With the PUD versus the IOP. What is that, has anything been done with regard to architectural standards and for the development? Bob Generous: Well we provided specific standards in there that go up and beyond what the office industrial commercial design standards require. We said no back sides to the building that’s visible to the public. Materials can be limited. Again we can work on building types and specified as part of the design standards, zoning of the property. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the standards within the PUD document this evening are higher standards you’re saying than they would be just in the general ordinance? Bob Generous: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Having come through a PUD. Okay. Where else in the city, and I think there was a mention of Chan Business. Where else do we have situations here, I mean there obviously has to transition between any type of land use and another. Where do we have other situations where we have a land use such as this commercial land use next to residential? Bob Generous: Low density off of Dell Road and Lake Drive East where Super Valu and those projects are. And then we have the residential in Eden Prairie. 13 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: It also abuts Chanhassen too, so the Super Valu… Then the other one would be Lake Drive West. Mayor Furlong: And where’s that located? Kate Aanenson: If you go on Lake Susan Hills, to the south, that industrial park, and that’s a newer industrial park. Then we also have the Chan Business Center where the National Weather Service is, that is residential low density to the south. Councilman Lundquist: You have Stone Creek and General Mills as well. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Actually there’s another one too, that is Timberwood. Right on the corner of Timberwood. When we put the road in…there across from the elementary school, just on that corner of Timberwood. Mayor Furlong: Across from the church and elementary school. Kate Aanenson: And there’s some multiple housing right there that’s adjacent to Stone Creek Drive… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let’s see, other questions right now. Councilman Lundquist: Bob the drainage north of Lot 6 mostly. As I was walking around out there last week, you know we haven’t had a lot of rain. It’s pretty sloppy down at the bottom there and as we look at grading and doing berming and all of that stuff there, there’s kind of, I forget exactly which house it is in Trotters Ridge but there’s sort of a culvert thing there that apparently doesn’t work all that well and I guess as we do those berming and those things, has Lori taken a shot at what we think is going to happen to the water there that now uses, kind of pools right where that building on Lot 6 will be. Bob Generous: Lori and our engineers and their engineers and we still want to, the ultimate design will depend on what the final berm is and so we’ll have to look where we need to put intermediate catch basins in also to pick up water within the site. The developer’s open to that. Whatever he needs to do to treat his water. Councilman Lundquist: So we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the water in the bottoms of those yards should get better or remain and definitely not get worst. That’s our standpoint? Bob Generous: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Do we have that set as a requirement anywhere? Bob Generous: Only in the general that the developer will work with staff to address the drainage issues on the north side of Lot 6. 14 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then the distance between, really between that northeast corner of the building on Lot 5, or the lot on 5 and the north property line. We’ve got that Outlot B, is that a triangle piece so from the, what have we got from the setback there? Is that 150 feet? Bob Generous: That’s over 200 feet. Councilman Lundquist: Over 200 feet, okay. Bob Generous: Primarily because they need to have the wetland setback. Councilman Lundquist: On Lot A. Bob Generous: For Outlot A. Councilman Lundquist: B, I’m sorry. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me councilman. What’s that from the wetland? Bob Generous: It’s a 40 foot setback from the buffer and a 16 ½ foot buffer requirement so 56 and a half. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry. Councilman Lundquist: And then, last when we talked about, we talked a little bit about access from Lyman. We talked about also the potential of access to the west through the existing business park in Chaska. Can you talk about those conversations and what came out of that. Bob Generous: We did ask Chaska if they would be opposed to that idea. They said go ahead. However in looking at it, there’s two issues in that. First we have private property. The only place theoretically to put it would split the two properties just to the west of this. Lot 5. Councilman Lundquist: 4 and 5? Bob Generous: Yeah, right up in that northwest corner of the site. And if you go to the Chaska side there’s a retaining wall in that location also so there’s topographic changes that would be tough. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Is that a public street or a private street that it would access off of. Bob Generous: It would be two driveways. So it would be, it’s private driveways. Two of them rather than even a private street that would serve two properties. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. 15 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? We may have some others as we do hear more. Okay, at this time the applicant’s here. Like to come forward and address the council? Thank you. Ben Merriman: Mr. Mayor, council members. Good evening. My name’s Ben Merriman. I represent Eden Trace and the developer of the property. Sometimes it’s easier to start from the beginning then kind of walk through things then it is to jump right in so I’d kind of like to do that if I may. I’ll try to be relatively brief because some of these subjects have already been covered. We originally looked at the 40 acre site and as Bob mentioned we came in under an IOP and with that IOP we had one additional lot to what you’re seeing now. We complied with everything within the zoning requirements of an IOP and had that lot in there. We met with staff and I really got to extend my gratitude and appreciation to your staff of Chanhassen. The depth of knowledge within the staff is excellent and they pointed out a number of different factors that persuaded us to go into a PUD, and so I think we owe them some gratitude from that standpoint because they’ve helped us through this process. We have a couple wetlands that we’re dealing with. There was one that is in this area here and then a couple of spots that are in here. Those are being mitigated to the wetland area there. We have a regional holding pond. Our preservation area is approximately 4 acres and that’s the outlot that we’re going to leave as a preservation area, and that’s this area here. In designing that we also took into consideration a majority of the trees that extend beyond the 4 acres which is down in this area here. In order to do that what we’ve done is design the shared drive between these two lots rather than running two driveways, one for each. And in doing so we’ve been able to save a lot of these trees. We also ran a lot line between these two trees that are here in order to maximize the number of trees and save them. After the planning meeting we did a number of different things to try and appease the neighbors of this development, and I think we’ve done an excellent job. I’d like to kind of go through those. First of all we increased the number of trees that are being planted on this property and this is just for the development. Each building has to come in and also plant trees and that type of thing, so we’re not addressing the buildings. Just the development itself. At this point we have enough trees in the exterior buffer zones to comply with an IOP zoning. In other words if we’ve gotten the site, we have enough trees planted in the buffer zone to comply with the tree replacement requirements that you currently have. The tree replacement or the number of trees that we increased are in a couple of different areas. First area is right through here. All these trees in here were added and then again through here and then we’ve increased the area through here dramatically. All this area and from here to here we have trees planted to the maximum number we can get in there. In other words there’s only so close you can put each tree and it will still allow growth, so we’ve maxed out the number of trees that we can plant essentially along the borders of this industrial park. There’s been a lot of talk and rightly so about this area in here. Now we first talked about just putting in a large berm and Lori, rightfully so came in and said look, and Jill came in and said, look if you plant trees on top of a big berm, a big hill, they’re going to die. You can’t just do that. So we had to come up with another solution, and what we’re suggesting is above and beyond planting all these trees through here, the wall of this building here will act as basically a retaining wall. So what we’re going to do is start a slope outside of these trees. When this property develops. I can’t do it prior to this building going in but the building wall is going to act as a retaining wall. So what we’ll do is run an undulating berm…ski hill coming up to this and then undulate the hill and roll it a little bit and put in spruce trees are normally the best that we can provide, up towards the building and 16 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 then the trees that are planted along the perimeter in the buffer zone, those will be deciduous trees of maples and lindens and that type of thing. What this does, and the, it’s a little bit high. I don’t know if you can zoom in on this, but what our architect did is put a building, and I’ll put my glasses on to read. This is 40 foot. This is a 30 foot high building. So we looked at two lots and then what we did is in the back yard of Lot 2 of Trotters Ridge, if you were standing at the walkout level, and you’re 6 foot tall, this is the sight line that you’re going to see. Now the architect, we’re asking to undulate the hill a little bit differently than what he’s got…bring it up a little bit higher in this area here. Well basically this is the sight line so if you’re standing there, at the floor elevation of Lot 2, we’re decreasing the amount of visibility of the building quite dramatically by building this hill. We think that will help a lot. The area in there will be maintained in more of a natural state. I think we need a little bit of discussion about this with the neighbors as to what they’d like to see in there, but I think what we’re finding is not something that’s sodded and mowed once a week, but something more in line of a natural vegetation and perhaps it needs to be cut 5 times a year. 4 times a year. It’s probably not too dissimilar from, in the Chanhassen Business Park there is the weather station has a large area and I believe that’s cut several times a year, but it’s not mowed per se. The drainage has also been something that we’ve looked at in that area. There is a culvert in there. To be quite honest I don’t know the size of that culvert and we’ll investigate as to it’s size and it’s capacity. We will however put in our’s a drain for anything that comes off of that hill so any additional drainage that’s going to occur, if that culvert can’t take in that water, then we will pipe a drain in there to take care of any excess water, and we’ll work with staff and our engineers and their engineers to guarantee that there isn’t any additional water that’s going into that area. It’s my understanding that water does accumulate in that area and then slowly drain off into that drain. There’s one other area that we changed a little bit and Bob alluded to it and that is these two lots down here. Currently we have a grade change between this lot and this lot through the center line. What we’re proposing to do is lower this building. We’re not sure exactly how much to lower but we’re trying to lower the building a couple of feel and then we’ll change this access point and by doing that these two buildings sit at the same floor elevation. We eliminate that retaining wall. The retaining wall can go here and we’re able to save a little bit more trees and be able to get the building lower so when the new trees are planted, it covers more of the building. I think that pretty much covers the changes that we’ve made. There was also some conversation about the height of buildings and that’s an area that we’re willing to bend a little bit off the 40 feet and we’ve worked with the folks and try to find a building height that works for us and it also will work for the neighbors. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions of Mr. Merriman. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Merriman, you might not, maybe this is a question for Kate or Bob. There’s a building that you can see from, that would essentially be just to the west of your’s on Lot 5 in that Chaska industrial park there. How, do you know, anybody know how high that is about from the back of the houses in Trotters Ridge? Ben Merriman: The bakery or Lewis Engineering? Councilman Lundquist: Either one. The higher of the, when you stand in that back yard you can see, there’s a pretty prominent building that sticks up above the fence there. 17 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Ben Merriman: There’s a bakery back there and that has, that’s got to be well over 30 feet. And Lewis Engineering isn’t quite that tall. I think they’re probably, I guess I don’t know exactly how tall their building is. Councilman Lundquist: And then there’s a grade change between that and what Lot 5 would be at now. Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s why there’s a retaining wall on the Chaska side. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Of Mr. Merriman. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Merriman, one of the, we brought up earlier was a retaining wall going from 6 to 12 and I think Steve, I don’t know whether you were talking about that on the north side or not but the impact of moving from 6 to 12 could, I’m assuming that could mean taking out more trees and increasing the angle, considering you would lose the benefit of increasing the berm because you could have less vegetation on the higher berm, would that be safe to assume or not? Ben Merriman: On Lot 1? Councilman Peterson: On the north. Councilman Lundquist: I think he means 6. Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Just the berm. Ben Merriman: The berm height? Increasing the berm height? Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Anywhere from that northern part where the residents are, Steve is that where you’re talking about increasing the berm? Councilman Labatt: Yeah, by Lots 2, 3 and 4 side. Councilman Lundquist: Of Trotters. Ben Merriman: Yeah, I think 3 to 1 is maintainable so we could certainly run a 3 to 1 slope from essentially where we’re planting the new trees all the way up to the building. Or through that entire 100 foot setback. We could run a 3 to 1. I’d like to see some undulation of that and so that it looks a little bit more natural than just a runoff slope. And in doing so if you create some pockets, that will collect some of the water for the trees and you plant the trees in the pocket and that seems to work fairly well. As that area wouldn’t be irrigated, or at least we weren’t planning on irrigating it. 18 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Todd Gerhardt: And that’s what you’re proposing right now is a 3 to 1. To go higher you would go above a 3 to 1 slope. Ben Merriman: Well you can go higher. Increase the 3 to 1 angle? Todd Gerhardt: If you made the berm taller, you would lose your 3 to 1 slope, correct? Ben Merriman: Yep. Todd Gerhardt: And then you have kind of a maintenance issue that you’re going to have to one, real question if the trees will grow on that steep of a berm and then two, I don’t know how you maintain it. It would have to be just natural grasses of some sort that would never be mowed. Ben Merriman: It gets very tough. I mean you could not, essentially after a 3 to 1 slope it gets very difficult to mow. Also in heavy rains you’re going to get wash off and even if, it isn’t so dramatic during the summertime when the vegetation is fairly strong, but if you get a heavy wash off in the early spring, it will create some wash off’s so I wouldn’t recommend going higher than a 3 to 1 slope in that area. Unless you were to retain it. Unless you were to come up with a 3 to 1, put a retaining wall and then continue at 3 to 1. That’s something you could possibly do but you’re getting into some more mechanics of the whole thing. Mayor Furlong: But you were saying, if I understood you by the undulating fact that it was designed, or actually reducing some of the storm water runoff to the north across the area and it catches in the lower levels and move it east/west and also in the trees. Is that? Ben Merriman: There is some. It will catch some of it but not a great deal. What we’re trying to do is just create some slope or pocket for where we’re planting the trees and then that gives the trees more water and a better change that they’ll survive under those conditions. The water runoff I think we just have to plan on. Anything that lands on that berm is going to come back so we’ll plan on that and engineering it so…so be it but we’ll plan for all the water that comes, that lands on that berm to be picked up by a storm drain of some sort. And if the capacity of the existing one is not sufficient, then we’ll put one in that is. And we’ll bring the water to our regional pond. Mayor Furlong: How is that to the west of Lot 6, you get into the Outlot C. How are the elevations there versus the height that you’re describing here? Is it going to be, right now where Lot 6 is pretty low. In fact I think there’s even a wetland area… C is higher, correct? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, there’s a hump in the middle. Mayor Furlong: Of Lot 6, I’m sorry. Between Lot C and Lot 6. Outlot C. Ben Merriman: Lot C comes up quite dramatically. Yeah, there’s a fair amount of a ridge that basically runs through that treed area so it’s coming up from the east, hitting that ridge where we have the preserve, and then running again back down to the west. 19 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Now is there going to be an opportunity to improve storm water in the area both on your property as well as maybe this property to the north in terms of managing the storm water here, and maybe that’s as much a question for staff too as you, I mean as we’re looking at building Lot 6. Collecting the storm water there, is that an opportunity to the extent that Lot C right now because of it’s elevation down to the northeast, that we can try to work with storm water management there as well. Ben Merriman: That’s a good point. And perhaps we should take a look at the water that currently comes off of Outlot C or that preserved area and do that in the water calculations and we’d be happy to do that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Merriman or the staff? Councilman Labatt: Can you pop up Nann that overhead? Go back to your little schematic there on the sight line, the cross section. The bottom right there. So this cross section is from a resident, a 6 foot resident sitting, standing outside his walkout level. Of Lot 2 or 3, they’re pretty similar. Ben Merriman: I believe they’re pretty close, yeah. Councilman Labatt: So if they were in their upper level bedroom or family room, which is 8 to 16 feet above that grade, they have a whole different sight line, correct? Ben Merriman: That is correct. They would be looking from, if they were out there at the main level of their house, it’s probably an additional 10 feet higher I would surmise and the architect also didn’t run this at a 3 to 1 slope. Councilman Labatt: No. Ben Merriman: And I asked him to but sometimes you have to. Councilman Labatt: Can you take a free hand pen and try drawing a 3 to 1 slope on there? I’m just trying to figure out, my whole point is, I don’t know if you guys have ever watched or follow my hand here, where it comes down from the building and then swoops back up. That swoop back up is where I’d like to see it a little bit higher and that whole thing would be higher, correct? Ben Merriman: Correct. What he did is he started out as a 3 to 1 slope so again this area here is probably run at a good 3 to 1 slope and so if you were to continue that, and then put some kind of a undulation in here but if this was continued up I think you’d be running a 3 to 1 slope and we’re probably at the top of that tree… Councilman Labatt: Once you put that tree up higher, the trees up higher onto the building. Ben Merriman: That is correct. But we would be certainly willing to run it at a 3 to 1 slope with some undulations from the plantings of the new trees to that building. 20 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Labatt: I’ve got more points but I’ll just wait. Councilman Lundquist: That point that Councilman Labatt was talking about, how far is it from those houses, Lot 1, 2, 3 there along Trotters to that edge of that proposed building on Lot 5? Or Lot 6, I’m sorry. You’ve got a what, 100 foot setback from the property line there and then those houses are probably set back what, 50-60 feet maybe. Something like that so you’re 150-160 feet. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this time? No? Okay, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff at this point? What I’d like to do at this point then is invite residents and other interested parties to come up for public hearing, public comment. I would say too, as a preference here, we received a tremendous number of e-mails, phone calls, comments on this development and comments about what took place at the Planning Commission. We’ve also had an opportunity now to review the Planning Commission meeting’s verbatim so to the extent that we have comments from the commissioners as well as residents so with that being said, I’d certainly like to present this opportunity for residents to come forward and provide some comments and to the extent that they’re new comments or emphasis of other comments, and you’ll have to use your judgment. If there’s a number of you that want to say the same thing, if you can appoint a representative, that might save us time and by no way going to reduce the emphasis of the point I can assure you. So with that I would invite people to come forward. Provide the council with their comments. Please state your name and address as you do. Barry LaBounty: My name is Barry LaBounty. I have been a Chanhassen resident here for 15 years and currently live at 2421 Bridle Creek Trail. I wish to thank the council members and the mayor for giving me the chance here to speak tonight on the Chanhassen West Business Park development. And just to start out, I’d like to, I like many others support development in our city, for both business and residential. Do not object to this development, the Chanhassen West Business Park. As with any new development there are concerns to what this will do to the quality of life and of course the property values long term. Really all I ask is that the development’s completed in a manner that takes into consideration a transition zone between the neighborhoods affected and the development. I would like to ask that you reconsider a few of the recommendations made to the Planning Commission by the surrounding neighbors. Councilman Lundquist: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. Todd, I’m having trouble hearing, thanks. Sorry Mr. LaBounty. Barry LaBounty: Thank you. Item 1, I’d really like to see to hold the buildings 5 and 6 to no more than one story plus the parapet for screening of rooftop equipment. This really would assure that as my neighbors and my family look out our upper story windows, we’re not really looking into a great wall basically or if in some cases there are second floor office spaces, we’d actually have people looking straight into our bedroom windows that are working in these office spaces. Really item 2 is assure that the berm is provided between Outlot B and Building 5 and that a berm on the north side of Building 6, which I guess now has an increase in trees, but again is structured enough so that it does provide again some barrier and transition zone between the current development. And really the only way to do this at this point is to increase the buffer 21 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 zone. Obviously there’s a 3 to 1 and it says we can only have it 6 foot, a 6 foot berm. That 6 foot berm will not really give us a whole lot of screening. Maybe from the ground level it will give us somewhat of a screening but looking out our kitchen windows, looking out our bedroom windows it will be really basically no screening at all. By increasing that to 150 feet, that would allow us to have a larger, taller berm and hopefully provide the transition that we would require. And lastly, item 4, I’d like to at least make sure again that, reiterate what Mr. Merriman had pointed out again or they’re looking at the drainage in the southeast corner of Lots really 2, 3 and 4. Having been in that area for 3 years, I’ve seen a lot of snow melt. A lot of heavy rain where that water tends to build up way out into the farm land. And as everybody knows in the spring snow melts we tend to get some rapid melting with large rain storms and it can create quite a big lake in that area. And actually in one case last year, just about came together with the wetland that was further to the south. So I guess with that, once again I want to thank the council members and the mayor for the chance to speak tonight. In summary, I do not oppose this development. I only wish to be able to preserve as much as possible the quality of the surrounding area for those of us who live here and also of course the future business owners as well. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Peter Sidney: My name is Peter Sidney. My LuAnn and I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail, which is Lot 5 in Trotters Ridge. I want to thank the council and the mayor for giving us a chance to speak this evening, and I’ll be brief. First I’d like to say that we appreciate what the property owners, the developer and the staff have done to take into account the concerns of the residential neighbors and mitigate the impact of the proposed development. While we do not oppose the proposed development, we feel that to maintain the livability and quality of life for which we chose Chanhassen, it’s essential to balance the needs for further development and provide a satisfactory transition between neighboring residential and industrial areas. We ask that the council seriously consider the concerns and requests of the neighbors that you’ll hear, and some specific conditions that I ask that you adopt would be the following. Designate Outlot C as a permanent conservation easement precluding any future development or change of permitted uses. I think that we have that in the proposal. Restrict the height of buildings 5 and 6. We ask that the buildings not exceed one story plus parapet for screening of roof top equipment. Do not allow outdoor paging and speaker systems. Consider limiting the hours of operation of businesses to two shifts. Do not allow lighted signage. Require minimally invasive lighting on the north sides of buildings 5 and 6, and specifically concerning Lot 5, to protect the large white oak tree. We’re the lot line between our property and Outlot C. Locate the barrier fencing in Outlot C no closer than 10 feet beyond the drip line of the tree. Jill Sinclair was out to visit our house and put out some proposed staking for the barrier fencing there. And also to protect against disturbance of the roots of this tree, do not extend the west end of the berm along the northeast property line beyond Lot 4 of Trotters Ridge. Again I want to thank the council for giving us a chance to speak tonight and I appreciate it very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kevin DiLorenzo: Hello Mayor Furlong and council members. My name’s Kevin DiLorenzo. I live at 2382 Stone Creek Lane West which on this map would put me right about here at the end 22 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 of the cul-de-sac. I want to share some of the thoughts that are on my mind tonight as well as the minds of a lot of my neighbors as we talked about this proposed development the other night. Let me start by saying that we believe that developers have a right to develop their property. But we also happen to believe that this is not the right development plan. We believe we can do better. There needs to be a better transition between the proposed development and the nearby existing neighborhoods, primarily Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. As you know this industrial development borders these two family neighborhoods which we believe makes this situation unique. All sorts of concerns have already been shared with the Planning Commission. Our first choice would be for the City Council to eject this proposal and take a closer look as to what’s going on in our corner of town. We want to see a clear vision for the city’s plan. Development has been fast and furious all around us. From Lifetime Fitness to 490 Town and Country Homes on the Degler farm property, to a new Chanhassen school and those are just a few of the things we know about. We believe this land being talked about tonight could serve a greater need for the community in the future. Now if you don’t agree with that, we would like to see a better proposal in front of you tonight. I’m sure several of my neighbors will share their thoughts about things like providing greater setbacks, building smaller and more attractive buildings, limiting semi truck traffic in and out of the development and perhaps the biggest issue, moving the proposed entrance and exit to Lyman. As citizens most directly affected by this proposed development I don’t believe we’re asking for anything more than our elected officials are there to deliver and we’re looking out for the best interest of the community. I want to thank you guys for the role you play in making Chanhassen such a great place to live. Even CNN and Money Magazine have ranked us number 16 in the country and that’s a great feat. Now is not the time to settle. If you agree I’d encourage you to vote against this proposed development tonight. If you’re unsure I simply ask that you delay your vote until you’ve had more time to think about it’s impact on our neighborhood and the greater community. Earlier today I mentioned to Mayor Furlong that many of my neighbors believe a decision to approve this development had already been made. He assured me that that’s not the case. As you know the Planning Commission had a 3 to 2 split vote on the issue. Tonight the vote is up to you. Thanks for listening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jeffrey McGuire: Good evening. My name is Jeffrey McGuire. I reside at 2272 Stone Creek Lane East. I’m Vice President of the Stone Creek Homeowners Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight Mr. Mayor, council members. The Planning Commission has worked hard to try to meet the needs of our community as well as the property owners in developing this site. We do however respectfully dissent with the zoning ordinance adverse affects…from the submission which is the traffic generation by the proposed use within the capabilities serving the project. We’re particularly disappointed that this plan does not take into account the existing road that accesses Lyman Boulevard. We’re concerned with the traffic generation study, particularly in light of the zoning of the property to the south of Lyman and how that will impact traffic flow onto Lyman. Perhaps sooner or later another crossroad where the existing one is. In addition the District 112 property to be developed within the next few years. The Highway 212 extension which as we know drops off onto Lyman east of the subject property and of course the Town and Country development. We would respectfully submit that Buildings 6, 8 and 7 be limited in their height. Or that any pasture of fill in would be equalized by an increase in the height of the berm on the east side of that property. With respect to 23 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Building 1 we would also like that limited to one story. But our biggest concern is the amount and the flow of traffic. The trip generation study that compares the Chanhassen Business Park is a business park with multiple access points. This property with only one cul-de-sac will force the traffic out through one exit and entrance for the same quantity of trip generations per day. What that means for any truck traffic of course is that there’s only certain left turn lanes. No left turn lane exists right now northbound on Galpin into that property. A right turn lane exists southbound on Galpin into that property. Trucks coming in on Lyman Boulevard headed eastbound will be forced to make a left turn across traffic with no light or any stop signs. Traffic westbound on Lyman will be turning north onto Galpin and be forced to make a left turn across traffic with no left turn lane. As you may know, this is a heavily traveled school bus route with pick-up’s along Galpin Boulevard. In fact the buses sometimes park to the right hand side, the east side of Galpin as they hold up for their route. So we would want you to take that into account. We’d also note that while we’re grateful for the Outlot C dedication to preserve the many beautiful trees on that site, we do note that there was a parking dedication waiver providing cash for the city and we would hope that some of that cash would be applied for additional mitigation along the east side for berming and trees. Perhaps even re-sizing some of those mature trees onto that berm. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Thor Smith: Good evening. Thanks for allowing us to speak. My name is Thor Smith. I live at 2139 Boulder Road in the Stone Creek development and I’m also newly on the Stone Creek Association Board. And we represent about 100, well exactly 141 homes and more than 265 people in our neighborhood. I’ve not spoken with all the households but I’ve been in contact with a large quantity of them and because of various reasons many of them can’t be here tonight and the ones that I spoke with wanted to have some of the voice heard before you. The number one comment that was raised by everyone that I spoke with is that this just plain does not make sense. When pressed a little bit deeply their reply is very consistent that why would anyone put industrial right across from or right next to residential neighborhoods. And you know we as a group, and again I certainly don’t speak for everyone in our neighborhood. I don’t want to imply that, but we feel the proposal, this proposal was not given proper consideration. We feel there needs to be much more consideration for the myriad of other developments that are coming up or have recently come in such as the Degler farm, the new school coming in, the townhomes, Lifetime Fitness. Just the addition of Lifetime Fitness has had a significant increase of the traffic on Galpin Boulevard and by adding the proposed development we feel the traffic gets raised to you know unacceptable levels and you have even a larger dilemma on our hands. Another common concern is the lack of vision for the future of Chanhassen. I know I personally, and a th lot of people I’ve talked to take great pride in the fact that you know we live in the 16 best city in the country and you know we brag about that and however we feel that by approving an industrial business park directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood with virtually no th transition between the two shows a lack of planning and we feel that 16 ranking in the future may be very difficult. And it you know saddens us because we know the potential’s there. We’re not asking for any special consideration. We’re not asking for anything different. We’re asking for the same consideration that we feel’s been given to other projects in the downtown areas of Chanhassen and we just don’t feel that we’ve been given…certain circumstances. Most of the people in our neighborhood anyway believe that this land should be developed and we 24 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 want to see an increase in business locating here and, but we would like to see development have a transition from our neighborhood where we raise our family to the industrial. The staff report states that the developer’s going to use high quality materials and you know, we respect that and we’d also, we would ask that the definition of it be more spelled out. You know it’s really relative to what you’re doing I guess that high quality materials for someone is completely different than it is to somebody else and we think that that needs to be spelled out a lot more clearly. We think that there should be some other restrictions as mentioned by some other people. We think that there needs to be more traditional roof lining or some type of a façade on the buildings facing the traffic that will be and the homeowners that look out their windows at these buildings that are going to… By doing these types of things you’re going to blend the developments much better than the proposed for the site. And we just ask if you agree with these concerns that we would ask or would encourage you to exercise the option of deferring the approval of this for a period of time and allowing us to have more conversations or a conversation with the developer in making more of a smooth transition between the residential and the industrial area. If you’re unsure then we would ask that you would delay a vote until you have at least some more up to date study and on the direct impact of this and other upcoming developments. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Gene Kruchoski: Good evening. My name is Gene Kruchoski. I live in Stone Creek as well as many of the rest of the people here. Mayor Furlong: And your address sir. Gene Kruchoski: 2030 Boulder Road. Mayor Furlong: Thank you sir. Gene Kruchoski: Sure. Many points have already been brought up. The things that I’d just like to mention in addition to those that I’ve heard is, I hope that there’s been some time spent by the council looking at the traffic as patrols try to cross children across Galpin at this time. There would be nothing in your studies as you said comparing car traffic versus truck traffic. You stated like what will be going into the high school. Well we know they don’t take semi’s. They take nicer cars than a lot of us. Anyway, but you want to, you have to make comparisons apples to apples, not apples to oranges. The development you’re proposing to accept would bring in truck traffic. The truck traffic near the school is already at a scary level, and I think it needs to be considered and the safety of our children. The second thing I’m noticing the plat map for the development as it is. I would like to know is any of the presentations you’ve had initially are there any plat maps showing that development drawn out with access from Lyman or access from the west and if you’ve seen those, were they presented to the County and rejected or is this just a more comfortable way to get through this situation? Thank you. Amina Linkous: Hi Mr. Mayor and councilmen. I’m Amina Linkous. I’m at 2208 Boulder Road. I spoke with many of you and I thank you for your prompt responses in speaking with us and allowing us to speak tonight. I just have two main concerns. One is the trees along Galpin 25 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Boulevard, we talked about one of the things that you did which is nice is added more trees onto Galpin Boulevard. Are these going to be large trees or seedlings or how long can we…so that’d be one question. Kate Aanenson: Do you want me to answer that now. There’s a lot of other questions we may be answering too. Mayor Furlong: We’ll get back to it then. Kate Aanenson: We’ll write them all down. Amina Linkous: And then the other concern I had, and I talked to the County Engineer today, is on the access versus Galpin and Lyman and we talked about that. The one thing that was addressed to that and I drove the property prior to coming to this meeting, is the access over here on this side is the other business park because I was surprised and happy to hear that Chaska was okay with allowing something like that. And I think that there’s been so much discussion and so much concern between Trotters Ridge and Stone Creek on this Galpin access and allowing that, I would love to maybe…the issue on an access in another business park. Because it is an industrial park in our back yard so we’re just trying to keep our neighborhood nice and keep it safe for our kids. Thanks for your time. Have a good night. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Drew Dingman: Good evening. My name is Drew Dingman. I live at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail which is Lot 1 in Trotters Ridge and you indicated previously that you had the opportunity to read the minutes from the Planning Commission so I just want to make one point of emphasis and I’ll be brief. And that is the point I raised in that the buildings down here were very specifically designed to minimize visibility from up hill angles. There’s a lot of care given to those buildings and the concern that my neighbors have as well as folks over in Stone Creek have raised and that building 6 does not seem to bear that same sort of architectural foresight and thoughtfulness. It’s two very large lines. It’s a very large building and it’s the one closest to the residents. I would ask that the council consider re-designing that building or limiting the size of that as well as the height. Thank you. Mike Wright: Hi there. Thank you very much for listening to us tonight. My name is Mike Wright at 2280 Boulder Road. My biggest concern is the, I’m assuming at some point either there’s going to be stop signs or stop light at this intersection. In addition Lyman is getting to the point where trucks coming in and out are having a hard time seeing the stop sign. Or else they’re just blowing right through that intersection so you’re ending up going to have a stop light system there also at some point. Galpin is only a mile long, plus we’ve got the concern as they said going to Bluff Creek. With the townhomes. How many stop signs and stop lights are there going to be in that area? So that’s something to consider also. Thanks very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? 26 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Rodney Melton: Hi. I’m Rodney Melton, 2413 Bridle Creek Trail. Resident of Chanhassen for th 10 years and I was just looking for a point of clarification as it relates to the July 19 Planning Commission meeting. They had mentioned as one of the conditions, I believe it was 54 concerning 150 foot setback as it relates to the Trotters Ridge residences, and tonight I think I heard the discussion centered around 100 feet and if we could clarify that I’d really appreciate it. Joel Lehrke: Good evening. My name is Joel Lehrke. I live at 2329 Boulder Road. That would be the houses that are directly across from Building 1. We’re on the drainage pond, in that area. When we had been talking with staff and also with Eden Trace, we’ve asked for an increased setback in that area. Picture may have been forwarded to you from Planning Commission but there is a set of mature trees in that area that has done a very good job of buffering. I see you nodding your heads and know what I’m referring to. Unfortunately the setback would be about 150 feet. We understand that but anything that would increase it would save a lot of the trees. The other thing I’d like to bring up this evening was the reference. We kind of smiled as you guys went through everything, a lot of this development talked about the codes and how it could be the IOP and basically I want you to know that even though we don’t see it as a threat, one that’s brought to us as the city at our meetings, the first thing that was said, are they threatening us so just something to consider when you guys mentioned the IOP to us. That is some of the conversation that we’ve had at our meetings and we said, well they could go to an IOP. Just something for you guys to know that that has been talked about at our meetings. Also with, in regards to the way we’ve had the housing go next to industrial. The weather ball was brought up. I was going to go take a picture of it today but didn’t think we need to do the P.T. Barnum show, but if you really go look at that area at that weather ball, what’s very nice about that residential area that’s directly to the south of that area, it has a very distinct long, mature tree growth. Mature trees. Not the type that are going to be replaced with the 5 gallon balls or the 2 ½ inch diameter trees so that’s something to keep in mind that you guys did with your blending there, that you do have a residential abutting up to an industrial. You have 40 foot mature trees along that whole area and it’s a solid line. Well done city. Well done. And that’s what we’re looking for at our area. Is something like that to do it. Now we’ve talked this evening about facades a little bit and some of the people have brought up points what we mean by facades on the east side of Galpin and also perhaps, depending on what you do with berming or facades for those people on Trotters Ridge. There’s been examples of a McDonald’s in Illinois that one of our residents used to live by. That when they looked at it you didn’t even know it was a McDonald’s. That type of façade is what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a person’s home here about a Super Target north of Milwaukee and that’s as big as anything around here and he said when you drove by it, you would never have known it was a Super Target. It just looked like nice little office buildings. Example I’ve seen in Chanhassen is where Quiznos, the dentist, across from the gas station where the new medical clinic went in. That has a very nice change in a façade for what is really a neighbor brought up to my attention a very square building that is broken up very nicely. Now I’ve talked with Mark and we know he says he has his undulations and breaking of the building and windows and stuff like that, but we are asking for a little bit more since this does abut up to so many residentials without a good tree barrier anymore because much of it’s going to be taken out and replaced with the small saplings. Yes, in 20 years it will look great. Unfortunately I will be retired at that time and down sizing. Thank you. 27 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Anybody else? Abby Wilson: Abby Wilson at 2332 Stone Creek Drive. Thanks for hearing us tonight. Like my neighbors I have some of the same concerns but am also wondering what would the construction time line be. When would it begin and how long would it last? Also would Galpin increase to 4 lanes to allow for the increase in traffic. And what kind of signal or stop sign would be put in that area. I’d also like to see some kind of study of some area that is similar to our’s but has had a proposal like this and what that’s done to property value and what we can see with our taxes. Thank you. Craig Johnson: Craig Johnson, 2450 Bridle Creek Trail. Two questions, can the developer or the staff demonstrate another neighborhood in Chanhassen that would be burden by two sides by light industrial properties? And the second concern I would have is, is the transition. Yes they’re putting berms and barriers in but in other industrial areas they’ve typically done a better transition and a much larger transition than what they’re proposing to do here, and if the council is to approve this particular project here tonight, would they be willing to consider some sort of limitation for truck access onto Galpin considering the amount of schools that are going to be put in place for the coming years. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? What we’ll do now at this point is probably close public comment unless somebody else would like to speak, and just for, to explain the process now. We’ll bring it back to council. We’re going to follow up with a number of answer to some of these questions and then the council will start discussing the motion. As many of you are aware, the 5 of us up here haven’t seen this before. Haven’t discussed it amongst ourselves so many of you have probably discussed it more than we have at this point, but that’s fine because our discussion takes place in the open, so once we bring it back to council there won’t be opportunity. We’re not going to go back and forth and continue to respond to questions and stuff so again, if anybody would like to add anything to the record or let the council know of anything, this would be the time because after this we’ll discuss it mostly with staff, but I should say mostly amongst ourselves but also with staff and the developer as well. So at this time if anybody else would like to speak, I’d invite them to come forward now. Joel Lehrke: Mayor, I just have a quick question. …I was not present at the meeting of the Planning Commission, I did watch the video tape and what many of noticed… Mayor Furlong: Excuse me sir, could you come back up to the microphone please so that those at home. Joel Lehrke: We just want to exercise some caution here. What we did notice, and I was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting but I did get the DV, thank you Bob for getting that for me and got a chance to go over it in quite detail and what we’ve noticed is when the meeting went closed, there were some errors made by the Planning Commission with statements and at that time that gave us no reason to help clarify those points and left us quite hanging. While you can close the meeting, I understand parliamentary procedure, how it works. We’re very fearful if you have some sort of instance where it’s an incorrect information and we all know some other information, how are we going to get that to you? 28 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Well, and sir to that point. We’re not closing the meeting. Everybody’s invited to stay. What I’m trying to emphasis is that we’re not going to go on for the next 5 hours back and forth… Joel Lehrke: Right, we understand that but if you see us all kind of rumbling about something that we know that’s incorrect, maybe pay attention to the waves that are being made. Mayor Furlong: And we do that each and every meeting. So at this point if nobody else would like to come forward, then I would sincerely thank everybody for their comments this evening as well as the e-mails, phone calls and participation in the Planning Commission as well. Some people have said, to me they felt left out and helpless and those words are kind of disturbing to me because I think we try to make a very good point. I know our Planning Commission does and our council does too to try to listen to people and while we may not always agree, we do listen so with that what I’d like to do now is, we’ve got a number of issues that have been brought up that I’ve heard. I know staff has. Why don’t we, and I know a lot of us have been taking notes and so why don’t, Ms. Aanenson, do you want to start with your list and we’ll make sure we cover it. Kate Aanenson: Yeah…Bob Generous and City Engineer Paul Oehme but I’d like to start off and I’m going to take the hot one first as far as the IOP threat because I made that comment. Just so everybody knows, there is a legal process that if it’s consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan, we are, we’re required to approve it. Now the staff worked diligently to try to move off the minimum and move them to the maximum, so herein lies the rub. Now I’ll also say that we’re going to agree to disagree on some things. Our perspectives but we moved, if you try to get an IOP, which we believe saves. Councilman Lundquist: It’s a PUD. Kate Aanenson: A PUD, excuse me. Instead of the straight zoning, because we believe that we would be able to, working with the developer, resolve some of those rough points and clearly there’s still some points of conflict that I’ll take a minute to go through. First of all I want to clarify Chan Business Center, which I worked on, is a long cul-de-sac. All traffic has to come out onto Audubon Road. So the trip generations that City Engineer Paul Oehme gave would be similar to this. It is a long dead end cul-de-sac. The façade on Villages on the Pond, that’s a commercial development. Both Bob and I worked on that. The first vertical proposed…that was done in the Twin Cities area and that is the, probably the key element that went into there first was St. Hubert’s that set the pace, but that is commercial uses in there which typically we tend to get more brick and stucco. We don’t have any brick industrial buildings that I’m aware of that are all brick in the city. If you go back on the historical, a lot of them were the tilt up panels which we’ve really moved a long way from as far as our industrial standards. That was one of the first things that we changed in the city code and I would say Chanhassen Business Center, and I also want to comment on the size of the trees because that was one of the first industrial parks I worked on. They didn’t start off that big. That’s a lot of years growth on those trees too, and that, there was a fence put on. That fence continually goes down. It’s down right now. There’s 4 sections of it, it’s kind of been a long term maintenance problem on that, so that’s kind 29 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 of what we’ve learned from some of our mistakes on that, putting up fences is a long term maintenance and I think that’s some of our concern that we’re working with the developer on. When we get a berm too high and it dries out and the trees fall over. We want to make it successful so, and we’re still trying to find that right point that it’s high enough to create screening and provide adequate to buffering. So again working on both those projects and the setback would be similar on both those projects between Chan Business Center and the subdivision to the south, as it would be on both of these projects here too. And there are other subdivisions in the city that have commercial. Lake Susan has it across the street and to the north so it’d be on the east side and on the north side, so there are other situations. Again I’ll just talk a little bit about the comprehensive plan. We talked about Lifetime Fitness. That’s an industrial park. A large industrial park. Couple hundred acres. Was required to do an environmental assessment so all those pieces that fall into that are generated by this. The property to the south that we’re talking about, the 600 acres is also guided by an environmental assessment document that also analyzed all the traffic. The area we’re talking about was guided in 1991. We re-visited it when we updated the comp plan. The city did contemplate, we had a request to change the zoning on this particular piece of property and the neighborhood resisted so we left it industrial. As we stated there’s industrial to the south and across the street, except for the school wanting to buy and this council stood firm and said if the school was not to build, you wanted to see it left industrial. So there is that industrial in the area. …signage issue is something we should discuss. That could certainly be some blight if we have the signs, lit signs along the Galpin Boulevard facing the neighborhood. Depending on the height I think that’s something we do need to discuss with the developer so I can certainly see that being a negative issue and we should kind of further evolve that. That would certainly be, and certainly lighting. Any lighting on the north side of, facing Galpin again, looking at that so that’s not intrusive. Some kinds of industrial buildings, put wall plaques on and again those can be very intrusive. We do have an area, the one that’s adjacent to Eden Prairie. We did have some issues there when a builder changed out some of the wall plaques and we got compliance on that and we don’t have complaints up there on lighting so I think that something we can certainly look at. I’ll let Paul answer the question, City Engineer on Galpin widening. There may be potential stop lights or stop controls in that area. Paul Oehme: The County currently does not have any plans for widening Galpin Boulevard. I believe Galpin Boulevard currently is 52 feet wide and there is somewhat of a shoulder on the side of the roadway at this time. You know with the traffic counts that they are at currently, I would be real hesitant to say that the County would ever, or projected traffic counts, would ever extend that roadway to 4 lane design now. Lyman Boulevard is a different story. I mean the traffic counts on that roadway are anticipated to increase significantly over time so with our conversation with the County we are definitely looking at expanding that roadway to 3, maybe 4 lanes of design. Kate Aanenson: We do know there will be a signal at Lyman and Audubon. Further to the south, I mean by the new AUAR area. Ultimately. Paul Oehme: Right. 30 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: And that’s a little further south than that so I’m just saying there will be a break in the traffic. Todd Gerhardt: There’s one there now. Kate Aanenson: Pardon me? Todd Gerhardt: There’s one there now. Kate Aanenson: Oh I’m sorry. Paul Oehme: There will be improvements to that intersection in the upgrades of that signal and again we do anticipate that Galpin and Lyman would have a signal in the near future as well. So another question I think that one of the residents had raised was the turn lanes onto and out of, acceleration lanes out of the proposed development. The county still has not reviewed the final construction plans so they would have that opportunity to include that in the construction plans at that time. So, and again Galpin is the County’s jurisdiction. Kate Aanenson: I just wanted to mention too, back to the intersection at Lyman. One of the things that the Park and Rec Director is working on is that to get to that school site they would do an underpass underneath Lyman with the reconstruction of that, so that would get children to the south of Lyman, underneath Lyman Boulevard, in this new area we’re talking about to the school on that side of the street. So it’s not at grade. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Then there was another question that we didn’t answer and that was about tree size that was going in… Bob Generous: Ordinance requires a minimum planting of 2 ½ inches. It’s caliper inches. It’s about a 15 foot tall tree. Evergreens are required to average 7 feet. I’m sure they’re going to look at trying to preserve some, use some of the trees on site to, as a savings cost because it’s just more economical that way. Kate Aanenson: There was a construction time line too and I think Ben has to answer that one. Mayor Furlong: Any, I’m going to look through my list. Any other questions right now for clarification from staff because I think I have a couple for Mr. Merriman too. Councilman Lundquist: On the issue of the road, there was a question asked about, how far along, what level of detail did the County see this development in it’s proposed, or if any proposed access off of Lyman? Was it a, when the developer, Mr. Merriman when you went in, was it a I want to put the road off of Lyman and Roger said don’t do it. You have to put it on Galpin or did you have some preliminary drawings or layouts. 31 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Ben Merriman: We initially sat down with our engineer, with Schoell and Madsen and we took over the property in trying to design the basic parts of the property. So when you do that, the first thing you look at is access and how to try and lay it out as best we could and we did actually look at it both ways. We looked at coming in right along the regional holding pond for the road which would have been accessed off of Lyman, and then we looked at the access point where we currently have the development. Both were considered but we kind of knew right away, given what was going to happen to Lyman. Lyman’s going to become a 4 lane road in the future and we, I’m not new at this. I’ve been doing this for a long time. They don’t want a lot of uncontrolled access points onto 4 lane roads so we kind of had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen, but when we contacted the County, that’s when the road was moved over to Galpin. Councilman Lundquist: So you actually showed a design to the County staff at all or was that a verbal conversation? Ben Merriman: No, just a verbal conversation. We did some initial sketches from Schoell and Madsen did some initial sketches showing both ways and how to run a cul-de-sac. We initially had the cul-de-sac in a little different configurations. Went through a couple different configurations with the cul-de-sac. Most of those were with regard to saving trees though so we backed it up to keep it away from the high point of that bluff. And then we had a couple configurations of coming off, one coming off Lyman and one coming off Galpin. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then Paul, you reconfirmed that with MnDot also, correct? Paul Oehme: With the County, correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: County, yes I’m sorry. County. Mayor Furlong: Before you go Ben. Councilman Peterson: …for construction. Ben Merriman: Well it’s a bit hard to judge. It’s based on the economy. We do have one building that we’d like to move forward with and that would be, that would be this building here. We’re looking at constructing that building relatively soon. And then other buildings, we’re currently looking at trying to, a proposal for this building with a couple of tenants. It’d be a 2 or 3 tenant building. Under a fast pace, 3 years. 5 years might be more close. We developed a park that you folks are aware of on City West Parkway, or not City West Parkway. On Lake Drive West and that development was about a 60 acre parcel and we thought it would probably take us about 6 years and it we actually finished it in about 4. That was under a good economy and the economy is stable but, so 3 to 5 years. 32 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilwoman Tjornhom: And this is a related question for you but, 3 to 5 years then, does that mean you would not do any of the berming or any of the tree planting until the project was completed? Ben Merriman: All of the trees, all of the trees that are planted in the buffer area along the edge will be planted. The only consideration that we’re, and one of the topics that we’re discussing is Building 6 and that berm which is here. We can’t build this berm until that wall is in place. And a couple of people have pointed out that this building doesn’t look as good as this building. It does. We haven’t done anything to this back side intentionally to a degree. We’re trying to make it a straight wall. We could put some wiggles in it or something to that effect but if you leave it as a wall and we berm up to it, it’s going to look a lot better than if we try to put parking on that side or put office. Design it for office on that side. Currently it’s designed to have the office on the east and south side of the building versus the north. You don’t really want office on that side of the building. Mayor Furlong: Questions for Mr. Merriman. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, I have one more. Mayor Furlong: Go ahead. Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: They were discussing the setbacks and in the Planning Commission it was 100 feet I believe and then, 150 and in our packet it’s 100 feet. Show me or can you maybe can’t, show me what trees would be lost by doing that. Was it on a point that if you moved the setback line, something would have to give? Ben Merriman: Yes. Basically if you move the setback line, it really has no effect except for this building here. This building, if you drop it 50 feet, you’re taking 50 feet of building out of that land. And if we do that then basically I’ve got to move that building this way to pick up that lost square footage. The problem with that is, and maybe it’s a give and take and that would be fine with me. However if we moved the building in this direction, what happens is this is a fairly steep slope with a lot of trees on it, so if I come in, just as an example, if I go 20 feet into that preserved area, you’re going to lose 50 feet of trees. Because you get into the root systems and the drop area of a tree, you will kill the tree. Not maybe not right away but it will die most likely within a few years. So it’s difficult for me to do an exchange there. In other words if I take 50 feet off one, I’ve got to take 50 feet that way and it doesn’t really work. Or it doesn’t work very well. Mayor Furlong: And continuing on that with regard to, you know if you come in the 50 feet as was requested from the north, you’re going to be going to the west so you’re losing trees. Opportunity in terms of listening to people and trying to look for opportunities with regard to Lots 1 and 2. By dropping Lot 1 down to a similar elevation to Lot 2, so you lose that retaining wall. I think that was something that we’re looking at. Do we need as much space between those two buildings so that, because trucks will be driving at the same level rather than at different levels, and is there an opportunity and what do we gain by this in terms of moving those buildings a little closer together? Do we pick up any trees? Any significant trees on the east side 33 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 of Lot 1 by moving those buildings together now that we’re coming to an equal level. Understand my. Ben Merriman: I do understand what you’re saying. Mayor Furlong: And maybe you don’t have a question but I guess I’d be interested in, if there’s an opportunity there with regards to what’s been presented this evening and requested. Ben Merriman: I think perhaps what can happen if the retaining wall is moved from here into this area, what that’s going to allow is that area becomes higher. The trees are planted at a higher elevation so we don’t necessarily move the parking lot in, but that area becomes higher. Planting trees there, we’re probably gaining an additional, Bob do you have the retaining wall, how high that retaining wall is approximately? There’s a 5 foot difference between Building 1 and 2. If we moved Building 1, which is the closest building down 5 feet, the retaining wall comes up 5 feet. This area here basically we get a rise in area 5 feet. With that we’re adding trees at the normal planted height. We’re gaining 5 feet of screening. So by moving the retaining wall you’re basically gaining screening. Todd Gerhardt: May I try? If you lose your retaining wall inbetween the two buildings, your loading dock area, could that be reduced, thus pulling the building west because you don’t have that retaining wall. You have to take into account a factor for those trucks to back up to the loading dock area to stay away from that retaining wall. How much do you gain, you know 10- 15 feet by pulling that building to the east? Or west. See what I mean? Ben Merriman: Yes I do. Theoretically the trucks on those buildings would have to drive around the building. If they’re going to back into these ramps here, they essentially cannot do it in this radius here so what they’re going to end up doing is driving around the building. Coming back this way and backing into those loading docks. Mayor Furlong: What’s your current flow? Ben Merriman: That’s the current flow. Mayor Furlong: The current flow, they’re coming around both buildings. Ben Merriman: Around the buildings and back in. Same thing here. We’re going to make them come around the building and come around this way. Come up and pull in here. Now they pull off the road and pull in this way. Generally they don’t like doing that. Truck drivers don’t. If this wall’s eliminated, this area can get a circle so they can come directly in off this way and circle and come in…but I don’t know how much without having an engineer take a look at it. Todd Gerhardt: This is the mayor’s idea… I don’t want to take your idea sir. Mayor Furlong: Unless it’s a good one, right? Todd Gerhardt: Right. It was a good one. 34 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: And maybe that’s something to look at, is what’s the advantage and getting trucks. Now they’ll still be at a lower level if we move that retaining wall to the east side of 101, or Lot 1 so. Ben Merriman: I’d be willing to take a look at it and see what happens there and whether we can move it. Mayor Furlong: Both in terms of flow within the development. Keeping it more internal as opposed to ex, into the outside external and then if there is any connect in that retaining wall on the east side of Building 1. Be moved any further west, and what does that gain us in terms of preserving the trees that are there now and… Ben Merriman: The green trees that are highlighted there are actually the ones that are existing and stay. Mayor Furlong: The dark green are? Ben Merriman: The dark green are. There is a really large tree right here, and then up here so if we move that over, I don’t know if you’re really going to gain any existing trees or save any existing trees. Again the theoretically that area comes higher, we plant new trees. Mayor Furlong: Relative to the roof line of Building 1, it becomes higher because you’ve dropped the building 5 feet. Ben Merriman: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Todd Gerhardt: Still a good idea. Mayor Furlong: There was a question on access points and Roger, maybe this is a question for you. Specifically the question was, having the development be required to access through the Chaska Business Park to the west. I guess my question is, the private property over there as opposed to a public right-of-way, is that a reasonable request when there are two county roads on two sides of it? Tell me what can be done there. Roger Knutson: You can’t force the folks who own the private property to allow another private developer to go through their property, is the short answer. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: And we’re required to provide access to this parcel in one way or another. Roger Knutson: Definitely. 35 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: In terms of traffic control, Mr. Oehme along Galpin there was a question raised and I think I understood the question as to whether or not there might be a four way stop at the point where Stone Creek and this development would enter if the access is off of Galpin. Is that anticipated given the traffic counts out of this development as well as out of Stone Creek that there’d be a four way stop there? Paul Oehme: Sure. Just based on preliminary numbers that we have here tonight, I would not anticipate needing a four way stop at that intersection. Again a signal or a stop sign warrant would still have to be met based upon significant back-up’s or accident issues at that intersection and so there’s a lot of different…that we would take a look at, but just based upon the information that we have here tonight, I would not anticipate a signal nor a stop sign. Four way stop sign being included at that intersection. Mayor Furlong: Okay. The architecture standards that are included in the current, or in the staff’s report. One of the questions earlier before public comment was, how does that relate to normal…there’s also, a resident raised the issue of being more specific in terms of what’s required. Is that, thoughts of comments there. Kate Aanenson: Well we have, we have the materials called out on page 8 of the staff report. Materials. Mayor Furlong: How did these compare to other? You said it’s different than, there are some industrial properties that have tip up I think you used. Kate Aanenson: yeah, or just concrete block. Yeah, if you look at unadorned tip up, that would probably be General Mills which is just a smooth face, tip up. That type we don’t allow anymore. That’s one of the older ones we had in the city. Most of these now would be the textured block. Enhanced with glazed tile. Those sort of things, and there’s a requirement for additional accent materials which in the past we haven’t gotten, so we don’t just see a long unadorned façade, and again we’re looking at a representation to show what the ultimate build out. Each of these projects will come in under these standards that are laid out in the staff report and again a public hearing will be addressed on each of those to look at the overall design, orientation and parking, new landscaping, those sort of things. Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying, if I heard you right, the accent materials, that’s number 11 there on page 9 of 9 or help me out. You said we don’t, we haven’t gotten that historically? Kate Aanenson: We do. We didn’t used to have that but now, with these that’s something we require that there’s additional architectural materials. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So it’s not just one long unadorned wall. That there’s relief in that and that’s done through the materials. And then the pitched roof with the parapet walls to hide the screening, those sort of things. 36 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Other questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: There was talk about the conservation easement on Outlot A. C, I’m sorry. Is that a permanent? Kate Aanenson: I think that’s certainly something we can put in there. I would agree, the goal is that’s not built on. You don’t want in 5 years from now, 6 years from now someone to come in and put a lot on there. The intent is that it be preserved in perpetuity so I think that’s something we would certainly want to put in there. Mayor Furlong: Is it going to be dedicated? Kate Aanenson: Well I think that’s always the cleanest way is that it be dedicated. Mayor Furlong: Would that be acceptable? Ben Merriman: Very acceptable. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, is there any examples of limiting truck traffic in our town right now? Kate Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. Councilman Peterson: What about the issue of outdoor speakers? I know we have some of that around town as I recall. Kate Aanenson: I agree. I think that’s something we should put in here. No outdoor speakers. We don’t allow outdoor storage. If that becomes a problem, that’s something we follow up on but there is no integral to the design standards, that’s not permitted, but certainly no outdoor speakers. I think that’s something we can add. Councilman Peterson: I don’t think we have limited second shift. That might be a bit over… Kate Aanenson: Even Chan Business Center has, as the City Manager indicated, the postal service has round the clock deliveries out there, as does General Mills, as does the lumber yard. So we have a few. Councilman Peterson: It’s not very often used but. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? None? Okay, Mr. Merriman thank you. 37 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Ben Merriman: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Alright, I guess at this point we’ll bring it to the council and let’s start discussing some of these issues and overall the proposed plan. Anybody want to take a start at it and as we get down to some of the issues we may see how our discussion goes. Councilman Labatt: Mayor, not that I want to go first. I want to ask Paul a question. Councilman Peterson: That means you have to go first. Mayor Furlong: Then I guess you have to go first. Go ahead. Councilman Labatt: Paul. I’m still, on this Galpin/Lyman access. What’s the long range plan for Lyman? We just had a discussion about the 2005 MUSA and obviously Lyman is slated sometime to be upgraded, right? Paul Oehme: Lyman is going to be upgraded from 101 to Powers Boulevard under the 212 project, so that section will be built by 2007. And that corridor is anticipated to be built all the way out to 41. So, and City Manager Todd Gerhardt and I and some other staff members are continuing talking to the school district and the County about scheduling that upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. There’s nothing on our plan right now for that upgrade but we are trying to facilitate that, those discussions and move that process along. Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor, can you ask Mr. Oehme maybe to explain what that cross section would look like. That widening. Mayor Furlong: I’d be happy to ask him what the cross section would look like. Mr. Oehme, what would the cross section look like? Paul Oehme: Thanks for the question. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Paul Oehme: Well, I wish I had that exhibit in front of me but yeah, I wish. No. The cross section for 101, or for Lyman from 101 to Powers Boulevard. I believe it’s a 120 foot right-of- way section. That section of roadway is anticipated to be 3 lane at this time with a center turn lane. Upgradeable to 4 lanes in the future. And we are anticipating that that section of roadway to be extended all the way to 41. That does not mean that maybe from Audubon to 41 that that roadway section will be a great pavement section or a wider pavement section because of the school and maybe some of the other developments out in that area and traffic generated, but where we would anticipate at least a minimum of 3 lanes, if not 4 lanes. So maybe 60 feet wide or something. And Lyman Boulevard would have a trail system also connected along that roadway section connecting to Galpin. Connecting to Chaska and to our new development area to the south of Lyman as well to kind of connecting the community and surrounding cities. 38 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Oehme? No, okay. More questions Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: As I look at the map, one thing that comes up into mind is the right-in/right- out off of Lyman. Have, did we look at that, explore that as a topic as far as the cul-de-sac. We’re making another road to come down and providing a right in from westbound and right out from the property to go out to 41 to…traffic, did we look at that idea? Kate Aanenson: I’ll let the City Engineer address that. Paul Oehme: Well my discussions with the County, you know I did not specifically address that with them but again, it comes down to access issues and trying to minimize those access points along the arterial collector roadway system there and again we’re trying to eliminate, limit the amount of access points to 4 way intersections. We do not feel that the property south of this proposed development would ever have an access at that point. Mayor Furlong: The property to the south has access, and again where Galpin. Paul Oehme: Yeah, currently. Mayor Furlong: So that would come in at a signaled. Paul Oehme: At a signaled intersection, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: They could also connect up through Chaska by the storage place and the water tower when the cul-de-sac comes in. Paul Oehme: Which one is that? Councilman Labatt: Off the nursery. Paul Oehme: Off the, yes they can. Councilman Labatt: Where the water tower is. Paul Oehme: Right, correct. Councilman Labatt: So they’ll have a second ingress and egress point. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Councilman Labatt: Where this doesn’t. That’s the only point. I just think we’re missing something with the right-in/right-out. You know it would certain provide access for 2,600 vehicles a day to have a second option to leave the site. I don’t know if the County’s been 39 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 pushed hard enough on that topic to look at that. And I don’t know how you’d, if you have to move buildings and redo obviously from what it looks like right now, but something to think about. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other follow up questions at this point? Okay. Council discussion. Thoughts or comments. Who’d like to start? You’re not limited to one opportunity to discuss either so. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, fellow council members, residents. You know industrial land in our city and trying to integrate it into communities is tough. There isn’t an easy way to do it. I think we all know we need it. At least we all should realize that we need it in our community to balance different types of development throughout the city from a tax base perspective. From a jobs perspective and a variety of others. What we’ve been dispatched with the responsibility is to figure out where to put that. We, not this council but councils before us and Planning Commissions before us said this was a good spot for it. And so that, with that you know the land owner has rights that they can put an industrial development here. And that’s why we’re here tonight because the landowner is presenting a concept that believes meets our ordinances and now the Planning Commission and this council are trying to figure out the best way to put this industrial park, office industrial park into a residential neighborhood. That’s not easy. But yet again we’re tasked to make that happen. And there was discussion about the IOP versus the PUD. It’s not a threat. I don’t consider it a threat but it’s a fact that this is an opportunity to get a better development than would be otherwise and I think that’s why we have PUD’s and that’s why we’re kind of on the cutting edge of the State. We use PUD’s a lot and I think we’ve got a lot better developments because of that usage and I think that will certainly come to fruition in this development also. I heard a lot tonight and a lot of my discussions with other residents over the past couple weeks. There’s clearly a disparate perspective of everybody and there isn’t a consensus between the residents as to what should be done either. You know we heard that tonight. And some realize there should be development and let’s make it the best one we can. Some don’t want it to be industrial. Others want it to be industrial and be done with it because they knew that was coming. Because they know it’s good for the city. So there’s a disparate view. To that end as I look at this development in comparison to others in the area, I think it’s a good plan. I think that it’s been sensitive to neighbors. I think it’s been sensitive to the environment. Are there things that we can tweak yet? Yes, and I think we’ll do that tonight but all and all I think it’s a good plan. It looks, you know we don’t know that the building plans haven’t come forward so we’re not doing site plans so we’ll again do our due diligence to make those buildings as architecturally interesting as possible. For those of you who have been around meetings over the last few years, you know I push for architectural interest, whether it’s residential or whether it’s industrial. You know I think that we as a council are obligated and we work hard to have creativity and strong building architecture. So all and all I think it is a good development. I think it’s, by hopefully the end of the evening we’re going to get it as good as it can be. I’m concerned about moving the setbacks because whenever you move a setback it comes at a cost. If you move, increase the setback on Galpin to positively affect Stone Creek, that negatively affects Trotters Ridge so I’m at least you guys aren’t sitting in different sections of the room because that’s what we’re all about balancing here and I think that’s what we’re going to try to do. So I’m comfortable leaving the setbacks as they are you know and letting the developer present some better ideas on the berming to 6 and the goal is to increase density of the 40 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 coverage for views and I think we’ve got some more work there that staff and the developer can do as we move ahead on the project. You know I think that we can work on some lighting to ensure both the signs and the outdoor lighting are appropriate for the neighborhood. I think that we can limit the building height and I don’t know what that number is but at least we can limit the building heights on certain of the lots that are adjacent to residential areas. I think there’s less concern on the interior and the ones that are adjacent to the Chaska business park. We’ve talked about limiting the speakers. Making it a permanent easement of Outlot C, I definitely agree with. And I would like to make, you know a full force effort. If we haven’t done everything we possibly can do to get the County to consider accessing in a different area, and obviously the County may not necessarily be the issue to accessing this through the Chaska business district but I don’t know if, you know we talked a little bit about this because of the elevations it made it difficult but it would be interesting to at least pursue with the individual landowner if they want to sell and access that way. I didn’t hear whether we had tried that and maybe that’s another question we have to have with staff or the developer tonight but I’d like to be able to exhaust all the access alternatives that we can and whether or not that’s having two access points, to limit. Leaving one at Galpin and put another access point in as another option. So all and all, I think it’s a well conceived plan. I think it fits that area as best as we can and be interesting to hear other council people’s thoughts on additional items that we can do to make it better. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: My turn. Mayor Furlong: Go down the row. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright. Well unfortunately when new developments do come in I think there’s always the fear that the existing developments will, their integrity will be jeopardized by whatever is coming in and I think that’s a legitimate fear here tonight. But just like Councilman Peterson said, this was set in place in a motion in 1991. It wasn’t really our deciding. I think if I could change that I would. Put in some nice residential lots would fit in better with the two developments that are there now but unfortunately this is what we have today and we need to work with this. I think it’s important that the developer respects the neighbors and the neighborhoods that are established there and they try to work with them and blend in the best they can and I think that is done with appropriate berming and trees. I think, I don’t know how you hide an industrial park exactly. Or an office park. I don’t know how you do it. I just think it’s there and you’ve got to just make it work somehow and I think the developer seems to be open into trying to make everyone as happy as they can be with what’s there. And I think that it probably will be a beautiful development when it’s all done. I like the fact that he is going to the effort of saving or preserving the trees on Outlot C. Is that correct? I mean that’s something alone I think that he should be commended for. And so I do though have to go with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to have the 150 foot setback instead of the 100 foot setback. There’s a give and take there and I guess we’re going to have to take some trees to get some more privacy and screening for the neighborhood. And I think with that I’ll leave it there. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. 41 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Comments a lot along the lines that Councilman Peterson eloquently stated. As far as, we got some comments about lack of vision and for the, this part of the city, the city in general, I think I would respectfully disagree with that. We have thousands of pages of documents and studies and time and effort that has been spent on environmental studies and guiding and comprehensive plans and looking at the city from a 30,000 foot view. When you boil it down to this development it might seem that way but as Councilman Peterson stated, there’s really not a good way to transition between residential and industrial commercial there because somebody’s got to be the border. If you go from single family to townhouses, that was proposed here and the residents don’t want, didn’t want townhouses there for a variety of reasons. And so there really isn’t, and there has to be a mix and so as Councilman Peterson stated our job is to try to do that as best we can. And I think even given the choice of residential in that area, I’m not sure that’s a great thing for that. We certainly would have the ability, albeit difficult to change that but I believe that this designation of industrial and, is the right application for this space so I’m comfortable with that. I would, I think we’ve done a, the developer has certainly been open to comments from residents and staff. I think hopefully this is a good demonstration for residents in these neighborhoods and all over the city that the best way to get your concerns answered is to bring them forward because had the ground swell of all these people here and the e-mails and the phone calls and everything else not happened, it probably, there probably would have been 50 foot tall buildings close to property lines without extra trees and all kinds of things like that so, you know there’s a possibility that people will walk out of here tonight not fully satisfied. But hopefully take a step back and look at what could have been and where there is some give and take and hopefully that will, we come out with the best possible plan here. And then lastly, before we get into the specifics of the motions and things, I would also agree with Councilman Labatt that we need to go back to the County and push harder. I think that I’d like to explore that right-in/right-out off of Lyman in addition to the access at Galpin. It gives a little bit of more opportunity there, depending on which way you’re going and things like that and I understand the County’s position. We’ve seen it in other parts of the city, especially up on Highway 7 where MnDot has been closing access points to that for those major roadways, but you know I think if we push a little harder there’s a possibility there. I’m not as hopeful on the Chaska piece. I think it doesn’t hurt to ask the question but wouldn’t, I think there’s not only private parties involved there but there’s some engineering and other topographical issues there as well that prevents, makes that more difficult but perhaps we stand a good chance at a right-in/right-out for the County so. I’ll save the specifics for when we get into the motion. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Thanks to my fellow councilors that were willing to go back and look at that right-in/right-out. Appreciate that. I think that will send a message to the County that we’re not pleased with their quick no to the access and I’m just not sure how I’m going to word that in our proposal unless we table something but one other comment. I think Craig has hit it right on the head here. We can’t stop it but now we’ve got to kind of minimize the impact and the overall problems that can occur, or may occur. So some of the issues that were brought up and I think we all have kind of hit on some of them. I’ll just repeat them briefly here. According to the staff we can limit the height of the buildings to 30 feet. I think we need to do 42 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 that on Buildings 5 and 6. Make them 30 feet. One level and include the parapet and the screening. I appreciate the cross section that the developer provided but when you look at, it’s at the walk out level at the 6 foot height. When she gets to the kitchen or master bedrooms, we’re defeating the purpose of the trees and the berming so I’d like to limit that and include something in there about the parapet for screening. In reference to the berm, I mean if we’re looking at 3 to 5 years out up on that Lot 6, granted those trees are going to be planted up there along what I’ll call the north line. The north property line. Is that correct, the trees will be, those trees will be planted up there? On the north rim. Ben Merriman: All those will be planted at the time of the development, so they’ll be planted this fall or next spring. Councilman Labatt: Okay. The only thing I would ask, for those that are going to be planted there maybe we can do some sort of berming then and not have to wait for the Building 6 to go up. If they’re going to plant those trees, maybe put something in there to work on the drainage problem on Lots 2, 3 and 4. Maybe just address them a bit but I’ll just, there’s a drainage problem up there. On Lots 2, 3 and 4. Ben Merriman: Well with respect to the drainage problem, yeah we can pretty much solve the drainage problem by putting in a culvert that will pick up excess water approximately where it’s pooling. There’s an area where it’s pooling a little bit west of Lot 2 or I guess I don’t know the lot numbers but the water’s pooling up high in an area where we’ll try to pick up the water and we pick up all your water off that berm. With respect to building a berm. Councilman Labatt: The little berm. I mean you can do that first swale of your cross section, you can do that first swale. Ben Merriman: Yeah, it’s a good idea. Inasmuch as it will give those trees, one it starts the berm and two, it gives the trees a chance to get growing. Councilman Labatt: Thanks. I think we’ve discussed Outlot C and making that a permanent designation. We’ve talked about no outdoor speaking. The lighting on the buildings. We just need to form a motion on that. Outdoor speaking? Avoid a lot of talks during breaks so they go outside. And then the building 1, I think the developer with the mayor’s help and Todd’s help will squeeze those buildings together. Other than that, you know let’s just figure out how we can get the County to give us a right-in/right-out. I mean if they’re going to upgrade Lyman, it only makes sense and maybe we can have the developer come up and talk about how he could tweak that road or somehow make that road into a Y with a right-in/right-out off of Lyman if possible. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think initial reaction to that, I’m not opposed to looking at a right- in/right-out. I would be hesitant to change zoning and approve a preliminary plan unless we know what the effect of that would be on the rest of the development. And particularly I’m looking at, what I heard was, you start moving things you’re going to start, you move it all within there so there’s a number of trees that are being preserved and others planted to the east of Lot 4. If it’s Lot 3, needs to be pushed to the west to allow the right-in/right-out, what that’s going to do to the rest of that. I’m not proposing but as you look at it, you know it’s probably 43 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 going to bring that right-in/right-out to the west of Lot 2. I’m not opposed to that. If it picks up anything, some people would be in favor of it and I’m not going to be opposed to that either. I don’t know how much it will pick up but we can look at it. But I think internally I guess Councilwoman Tjornhom to your point too in terms of the increase setback on the north property line, I’d be hesitant to approve a preliminary plan without seeing what the affect of that has on Outlot C. …to the west, as I’m looking at it, that’s where all the grove of trees are right now and so we may end up you know defeating what we’re trying to accomplish here, but there’s going to be some balance. Somebody moving towards Galpin on Bridle Creek may prefer that. Now on 50 somebody living to the west may prefer to have the trees, so I think I’d be hesitant to make that change without…effect or the right-in/right-out with the effect of the overall. Having addressed just some reaction to those specifics. I think overall there’s been some question about the quality of the project, what’s being proposed. Is this right for our city? I have a hard time saying that it’s not right for our city in part because of not just our neighborhoods that are around it but the rest of the comprehensive plan and what’s being developed. Traffic is a big issue here and traffic along Galpin as I mentioned to some residents, as Galpin was upgraded a number of years ago, it was done with the expectation that development and this type of development would occur on this property as well as properties to the south. It is a, as roads go, it’s a very nice one. The shoulders are about a lane wide right now. With right turn lanes. There’s trails on both sides of it, with grass median between the road and the trail. So from a safety standpoint I think it’s a pretty safe road. Can we, you know there’s going to be more traffic on it as we continue to develop regardless of whether this development goes through or not so, you know from a traffic standpoint, let’s look at the right-in/right-out and ask that question again. I know that question was re-asked after the Planning Commission by staff for access off Lyman. Let’s re-ask it again but again I’d be hesitant to approve anything tonight without knowing what the effect internally would be because we may not be evaluating what that’s accomplishing. At what cost. To Councilman Labatt’s points in terms of building heights, I too believe that a reduced building height would be appropriate in this area. Certainly along the northern properties. The Lot 1 we’re already picking up some feet but I wouldn’t be opposed to looking at two height, or two story height. At least not on the borders. Perhaps throughout the development as well, so I’d be interested in my fellow councilmember’s thoughts on that. Overall I think the PUD process here made this development better than what it would have been. There will be more trees preserved. There will be better architecturally designed buildings. There will be the movement within to help improve and there will be an emphasis on landscaping which is above and beyond. In fact what I heard was double what our ordinance requires so there clearly are improvements here. Is it achieving everything that everybody would want? No. Is it a good balance between what the developer’s right to develop their property and what the neighbors are responding? My sense is yes. Are there some tweaks that we can do? Perhaps as my fellow council members mentioned and we can get into that detail so. I, like Councilman Lundquist said earlier, sincerely appreciate the e-mails and information and correspondence that we receive from all the residents. While we are not allowed to talk to each other during meetings, it doesn’t mean we can’t still pick up a phone and call Mr. Gerhardt or Ms. Aanenson or Mr. Oehme and ask some of these questions so a lot of the questions that you brought up tonight or started bringing up 2 weeks ago, we’ve already been pursuing those and that’s helpful to try to make that process more efficient. Is to get those questions out. Get them answered. Double checked just because the staff and the developer come forward with a plan and maybe they’ve asked the question, I’ll use access as an example. Does that mean that we shouldn’t ask again the County can we get access off Lyman? 44 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 That question’s been re-asked. Now we’re saying maybe we have to go back and say instead of full access can we do right-in/right-out. And that’s reasonable. That’s part of the process and I think ultimately we’re going to end up with a better project. It may not be everything that everybody’s looking for. It may be, it will certainly be different for those that have views of the property from their home but I think we’re making the best of what’s available and actually making better than just what our simple ordinance would allow. And I appreciate all your input into the process. So I’ve got a number of things. I think probably duplicate with a number of other lists in terms of things we’re looking for. We want to try to move forward with a motion we can certainly do that. Depending on the nature, some of the add’s we may want to defer but let’s open it up and see what people think. We want to try to put a motion together and work through it we can. Some of your thoughts and comments if there’s a desire to seek some changes, we may want to give some specific direction. Not that we’re going to re-open or keep everything open but try to gather some more information that we need as a council before we can make a decision. So thoughts. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Mayor, clarification. Kate. What, between preliminary and final, if we were to go back to the County and ask that right-in/right-out question, that’s obviously going to shift some buildings and stuff like that. Preference for you and your staff. Would you rather have this tabled and come back in 2 weeks or would you rather have a condition about another formal request for right-in/right-out and deal with the effect of that between preliminary and final? Kate Aanenson: Either way. I guess my concern is if we leave it open then we’re going to go back. If we can just synthesize what the critical points are that you want us to work on, I’d be comfortable with a table. I just, I know in talking to, at another meeting with Roger Gustafson, some of the neighbors have contacted him directly. I can tell you what’s going to happen tomorrow. He’s going to get a lot of phone calls and some arm twisting because he’s had some of that already so you know, and we’re going to be up there too so I guess if we kind of stick to a short list of… Councilman Lundquist: Well here’s the crux of my point. I’m firm enough on the right-in/right- out where I’m not going to wait 15 minutes going through this if you tell me that you want this tabled to talk about a right-in/right-out, I’m going to make a motion to table and we won’t mess with the rest of the stuff tonight and we’ll do it in 2 weeks. If you say, you think you can work through it, then we’ll muddle through the motion and put that as a condition and go. Kate Aanenson: But my concern is if you don’t get the right-in and right-out, then what? Councilman Lundquist: Well we can word that condition such that it’s a formal request and not a you know. Kate Aanenson: I’ll defer that to the City Attorney what he thinks is probably the better way to go. Councilman Lundquist: Who’s the politician now? 45 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Roger Knutson: My issue with this, I don’t know how you can effectively approve it with taking a look at right-in and right-out. I don’t know how that works. Let’s say the County says right- in/right-out’s okay. Then I would assume from what I’m hearing, without being a planner, you’d need a substantial redesign of the whole darn thing. Or you could. I don’t know. Kate Aanenson: I would agree because more than likely if you’re going to put a right-in and out you’d have to eliminate some of those buildings because you’re going to have to put a public street in there. Right now you’d be coming, if you went on the other side of Lot 1, that’s a driveway where there’s parking. And if you’re taking truck traffic, if that’s the goal, then you’d have to make that a street so it would, I would agree that it’d take some significant so if you want us to do that, then probably tabling is probably better. And then we can clean up the motion and get all those conditions in regarding the lighting, the signage, the conservation easement, the height and get that all modified into the conditions of approval. Councilman Lundquist: Do we have any time restraints that we’re up against? Roger Knutson: I believe we’re up against the 60 days but we can take another 60. I believe the th application was filed June 17. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Roger Knutson: So we have time. Mayor Furlong: I think to the extent Councilman Lundquist, if that’s our request I’d like to see the effect of that. If the County comes back and approves it, what’s the effect of that on the design because ultimately again we’re dealing with balance. I think Councilman Peterson said that and we, you know I’m not opposed to asking the question but I’m not going to pre-judge that if we have a right-in/right-out that we’re going to end up with a better design. And so if that’s the desire, there are a number of things here. What I would suggest is, let’s make sure, let’s give the staff specific direction. Now that we have to revisit all the issues again when it comes back up under old business but let’s give them specific direction on what we’d like to see in terms of some of the issues and let’s get more information from staff on that and working with the developer to say you know if we do this, here’s the effect. So that as a council we can look at the effect of that. And cost benefit. Valuation. Does that make sense? Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: I was more trying to be respectful of the time for the developer to not have another 2 weeks to wait but understand that… Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think this is important enough to a number of people that taking the 2 weeks would make some sense, and I’m assuming by making that statement that we think that we can get some of these answers back, or reasonable answers back within a 2 week period. Kate and Mr. Merriman. 46 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Ben Merriman: Well it’s kind of a County issue. Mayor Furlong: Well right but your issue is, and what information we’d be looking for is if the County allows the right-in/right-out, what does that do to inside the development. Ben Merriman: You redesign it. You redesign all of the projects…just reinventing the wheel to the interior of the project. Mayor Furlong: And for clarification here, what we’re looking for, what I’m hearing is not the elimination of the access of Galpin but the addition of a right-in/right-out off Lyman. Is that, I see heads going up and down so. Kate Aanenson: To be clear we may come back with two plans. One showing the impact and then the original plan and you can pick. Mayor Furlong: And to the extent that there’s effects on the development from some of these other things that we’ll talk through, I guess Mr. Merriman we’d be interested in hearing that as well, you know in terms of building heights and maybe we should just, let’s formulate it as specifically as we can some of the issues we’d like to see in terms of added conditions. Councilman Peterson do you want to start with a couple of your’s or what you have? Councilman Peterson: Yeah I’ll plant the seed with staff but limited signage and lighting to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. To work with the developer to limit the building height. I’m not ready to say a foot right now but see what is reasonable and prudent. Outlot C with a dedication, permanent easement… Speakers. I think one of the conditions already highlights tree protection during the building process. I mean it’s still going to be enforced. A lot of what we’re doing is because of the trees so we may want to move our normal setback from the, to another few feet out for the silt fencing. I think that’s all for me. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Any specifics? Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think Councilman Peterson’s gotten a majority of them. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: The only other one we’ve got condition 54 in here now that talks about the drainage issues with Lot 2. Like to see that modified to incorporate a generality with the Trotters Ridge lots and then also if it’s possible to incorporate the Outlot C runoff as they spoke in the drainage calculations. Mayor Furlong: If I could concur. Rather than relating it to drainage on the development to the north, let’s relate it to this development so Lot 6 and Lot C, Outlot C from the development standpoint, storm water standpoint, and I think there was a question on storm water over on Lot 5 as well. Some request there so. 47 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: Then the others have been stated already. I would propose at this point that I would be willing to support the 30 foot building height for Lots 5 and 6. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Whereas the rest would be left as in the design standards. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Any specific direction or information requested of staff? Councilman Labatt: No, you guys hit them all. I support the 30 foot on…5 and 6 and that includes the parapet. And everything else was hit so. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. The only other thing was just working with the developer to evaluate the, with the lowering of the building on Lot 1. What is the effect of traffic within there and we may lose some opportunity if we have a right-in/right-out there and a public street, but we might pick up on the, anything to save trees on the east side we might lose because we have to put a public street in there so that’s, but what the effects would be in terms of traffic flow internally if there are opportunities there on where the balancing points are. Is the other issue. Okay, anything else? If not, with that direction to staff is there a motion to table. Councilman Lundquist: I move that we table item A, B and C. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table the request for rezoning of property from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit on property located on the northwest corner of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen West Business Park, Planning Case 05-23. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK. APPLICANT TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11. 48 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Public Present: Name Address Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Larry Martin 2707 Spy Glass, Chaska Jeff Fox 5270 Howard Point Road, Excelsior Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Mary S. Ranum Fredrickson & Byron Kevin M. Clark Town & Country Homes Dean Held 2230 Stone Creek Lane East Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I’m going to use the computer in order to put the project on why I think it would be crisper to follow along. We’ve got a lot of different slides here. Again as you indicated this is Liberty on the Bluff Creek. There are several actions. I’ll just continue here looking at the site plan. There are several actions being proposed with this approval project tonight. Okay, there are several actions tonight before you. One is the rezoning from PUD. From A2, excuse me, to PUD Residential. This also includes the subdivision. There are no variances. It was noticed with a variance but there are no variances. Site plan review. Wetland Alteration Permit and the conditional use for alteration within the flood plain and also work within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So in summary the staff is recommending approval of this. It does take action by the City Council, just a majority of the City Council. I want to clarify that. I’d like to go through a little bit of the history of this. This item we’ve been working on for a number of years. When you originally looked at this project it required the AUAR. Environmental assessment document. Actually it required an EA and as part of the environmental assessment document, instead of doing just this piece we looked at the entire piece so kind of what I’m going to do is go through how this project frames up with the larger piece. So as part of the environmental assessment document there were certain framework issues that were put in place, specifically the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Resource Management Plan and kind of tying in the trails. So, what we did is looked at how to preserve the primary district. Okay, so. I’m sorry. So with the overlay district, looking at this piece…because what’s driving this development, this whole, in this whole 600 acres AUAR area is the primary, the primary district which we’re trying to preserve. So this project in and of itself incorporates that as the other projects. The other main thing driving this was the fact that 212 is being built and we wanted to coordinate the timing of this project in the AUAR to look at how that incorporated into the 212 project. So we began looking at you know after the AUAR was approved, and that was a year long process, we worked on designing the road as, City Engineer went through with the City Council before the meeting tonight in their work session, reviewed the alignment of the road as proposed because before any development can occur, the road has to be approved in order for them to tie into it, so all the projects have to match that. So this project in and of itself has gone through 3 iterations. So what you’re seeing tonight is kind of the final design based on the final location of the road. So they have accommodated that and that’s the driving force, the road has to be, for projects to go forward, they’re kind of tied together. For this project to advance they need the road. And for us to build the road, the city to invest in building a road, we need projects to advance so the two things are tied together. So this item actually had conceptual approval over a year ago and actually the fall of 2002 when it received a 49 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 conceptual approval. At that time this started the whole AUAR process. Most recently it appeared before the Planning Commission over a series of, those 2 years working through the design of the project itself. Meanwhile the city also worked through the design, multi family design standards and then in anticipation of multi family coming forward. So most recently this appeared before the Planning Commission in April and July. And at that time the Planning th Commission made, between the April the 19 meeting, excuse me, the April and July meeting there was a big lag time because there was another iteration of the design. Relocation of the road and also some significant features regarding grading and drainage so that significantly affected the layout of the project itself. So with that iteration the plan you have before you tonight is again the third evolution that incorporates the road. Again I want to frame this up, the road itself. This is the road that you saw earlier tonight with Kimley and Horn, so this is the property that we’re talking about right here. Originally in the AUAR the road swung…significant environmental features. Crossing the creek at the appropriate place. So with that, the design was redone to incorporate, the significant change then was this design which you have in your packet, was to accommodate down in this area here where there was some substantial retaining walls, that we wanted to eliminate. So these were changed to walkout units right here and the retaining wall was eliminated in some places and only 3 to 4 feet. The first iteration had retaining walls of 20 feet which didn’t set well with staff and then we were also concerned about how we’d run the neighborhoods together which relates back to the Sever Peterson property which you’ll be seeing later, so we want to make that transition smooth. The other thing that we’re requesting now that we have the…all these units up here which are coming onto the collector road, also have access onto the collector road, so there’s two ways to get onto that neighborhood. That was an issue that took off on the subdivision itself was looking at this neighborhood besides the retaining wall, making this connection and… Back to the staff report on page 2, one of the issues that first came up under the concept was whether or not this is guided industrial or residential. In going back and looking at why we gave it both zoning districts at that time, there was another interchange proposed at this location. If you go back and look at this one here, Mr. Peterson’s property has a significant taking for right-of-way in anticipation of a possible other interchange at this location…the land uses at that time, it was thought that maybe industrial might be appropriate land use. Unappropriate land use there. Industrial or residential so both were given and in looking at how the roads come about and trying to look at traffic calming and the concerns that the residents on the Chaska side had regarding industrial and possible additional trip generations, staff had recommended at that time that this go to residential and understood that the City Council was concerned about replacing that industrial somewhere else and we are working on there’s about 15, working on that now to replace that. There are some other sites that we need to be looking on there to find a replacement. Again the installation of this road is part and parcel to getting this project to go forward. So as we sit today this is the site, most recent site plan that we are looking at for approval. This does relate to the subdivision of itself which in your staff report talks about the total number of units. It’s 91 acres of gross acreage and 67 net, so it comes out to 6.6 units an acre net. Kind of go through, this was the last iteration that this development, this also had the units, still had significant retaining wall of 10 feet. This is a previous one so they changed that. Kind of go through the architecture. In the design standards I mentioned between the time we did the AUAR, the Planning Commission spent some time. Gave them all a camera and went out and took photos. Put together some design standards which since the City Council has approved and, so I want to go through this and I’m starting on page 5 of the staff report. I’m starting out on page 6 where we talk about the design standards, architectural style. 50 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 So the thing that’s unique about this project which you challenged the staff on, the applicant’s introduced four different products. And because modifications have been made to the home, introducing additional brick, not all products have the 20% but they are, they will have when they come back for final plat. Just as of today the one project that we were concerned about has been resubmitted with the quick materials but because you had already received this, I didn’t make that change. One additional comment we had was the color gray to be removed. Then going down further on the land use where again we talk about the four different styles of homes, use a broad variety. There is a neighborhood association pool. This is the only project of multi family of that size that will actually have an association swimming pool. A unique feature. And then a future public park which we talked about earlier, this would be the Degler property and there’s trails connecting that. The primary view from the collector streets, including Audubon will be the narrowest part of any housing, when you look at the… You can see that the units split from this side to that side so when you go down, you’re not looking at the same side of any one building. So you can see that this has the roof line over it. This is a different perspective, so as you drive down there’s no garages facing any of the major collector streets, and there’s also a different perspective on each. I apologize I had all these open before. Councilman Peterson: Pardon me but is that going down Lyman, is that what we just looked at or? Kate Aanenson: That would be Audubon. This is Audubon again. This is the back side of the units where the retaining wall was. They changed those units to walkouts as opposed to the different type of product. So reduced their grading. This is now facing the Peterson property so that has been moved. Go back up to the building elevations. So this is the part that we saw that’s facing Audubon, again with the different look. This is the perspective with the landscaping. This is the Chateau product. Again the four different products which we had shown you before but you also got included in your review packet. That was the color brick that we had the issue with. This is a product that has the garage on the back and so…so again there’s no garages facing the street itself. So I’ll show you that again on the site plan. So if you’re coming down this side of the street, the narrowest part of the building, which I was talking about on the site plan, faces the street. So you’re not looking at a sea of buildings. You’re looking at the narrowest part of any building. Now these again would have the, that’s the blue building I just showed you that has the patio so the garage is on the back side, so the patio is facing the front. The most active part of the building. When it came before the Planning Commission in April, some of the big changes there, we were concerned about parking and all the buildings have been provided large enough driveways for on street parking. If you look at some of the similar projects that you see in Chaska, Shakopee, there’s all different sizes of driveways but we want to provide what we feel is a successful project and that has adequate parking on the driveway. All of these projects, all of these products also have two car garages which is different from a lot of the other multi family. This is the first one that we have that’s all two car garages. So I’m still on page 8 talking about the design itself. The round abouts we talked about. Traffic claming. That was a concern that people would use this as cut through. We talked about this round about here. There’ll be another one further up somewhere close to the park property, but again providing that those be a landscaped median. The interior roads, the major roads will all be public streets. There will be some private streets between the units themselves. And then again the integration of the natural features. One of the assets again was the fact that we’re 51 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 preserving all of the green space, if I can find that. If you look at the entire project again we look at the Bluff Creek Overlay District, this area down in the south side of the creek, there was two homes in this. The 2 ½ acres since we saw it the first time that they did pick up and incorporate within this little remnant piece left in there, but there is buildable area when we first walked with the developer 2 years ago, and that was one of the areas we said we want to preserve so all these woods adjacent to the Chaska, providing that transition will be preserved. And then we had the area, the prominent part of the Bluff Creek so this trail will tie into the road itself. Now this is the earlier design so this doesn’t have the road with the round about over here but similar look with the trail. The other comment was, again typically we don’t like to take the, where you have higher density and put it into the lower densities but we would look at some other type of trail connection, maybe through there, emergency access but there will be single family which we’ll be talking about in a minute. So as part of the design standards itself we believe that it’s really completely different than anything we’ve seen before in the city as far as the style, the look, the variety of the units. Again going down the street, facades you’re seeing the different style and different color pallets and again as part of the PUD which is on the next page where we go through, they have to incorporate the design standard. That would be a story book that they put together calling out the different color pallets that would be required as part of each project that comes in. And as I indicated this also requires a subdivision on page 12 it calls out exactly how many buildings and how many outlots they would have. The three outlots are predominantly the primary district to the north, the wooded area to the south, which again this does have development. There are some slopes in the north that may not be developable but this is developable here on the south, and then the third is the pool area here. One of the issues that the Planning Commission had was the concern about crossing the street to get to the pool area. Amenity you’re trying to capture as you come in here is looking across. This is a large wetland… storm water pond is to create this kind of combine with open space and make that an attractive amenity. And it gives you kind of a buffer too for the pool and for the noise and for that kind of activity occurring on the far side of the street. There are existing wetlands. A number of them on the site. They have and are doing their due diligence on the wetland replacement plan. The other thing I wanted to comment on the overall, with the AUAR going back to the goals of that. One of the replacement areas that will be the wetlands is the Jeurissen property so there’ll be wetland replacement on that property and then the part that it’s crop will actually part of the goals of that is to actually bring that back to a wildlife area. So what this doesn’t show is the entire corridor itself but again that’s one of the goals that we had is to re- establish that with the trail. Make it a signature piece as you’re crossing down the trail itself. The flood plain, there’s a little creek you can see right through here, this blue line. They are mapping that through FEMA. We’ve done that on other projects getting it, it got blocked as it crosses here so they’re doing the paperwork on that and that’s where those two houses sat that had to be incorporated. Again staff believes we’ve worked really hard on this the last 2 years to get the design where we want it to be. Reducing kind of the friction points regarding the product. Those retaining walls again starting off with very significantly. The developer incorporating numerous iterations on the part of the frontage road. Trying to provide those transitions between the neighboring properties. Again the extraction from this will be taking park and trail fees and then applying them to the larger community park which we think is the kind of again the major gathering point for this, in the entire community. That collecting point. The one thing that we are still working on, it’s not just a requirement of this development but we’d like to see if there’s a place to do some slip off lanes similar to what we did up on 52 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Arboretum Village to provide some transit slip off lanes. Maybe a little opportunity for, and maybe that might be closer to a park where there’s a bus shelter for people in this area that may want to take mass transit. So again Outlot A we would take in the name of the City, and that’s just this area and this area. Be conservation easements again just to make sure that the association and that was a little bit different than came through when it went to the Planning Commission. And then also there’s a requirement in here regarding the FEMA fees required for reimbursement of the AUAR. So with that I did go through a lot of stuff. I apologize for the…but I’d be happy to take any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Do we want to start? Councilman Peterson: Kate, as you compare the scope and size of this development, would this be our largest in the city? Or is Pulte bigger from the housing standpoint? Kate Aanenson: Well when Lake Susan came in as a PUD, that one had probably almost 1,000 units. 1,000 plus and that had single family, apartments, twins, quads, across the street so that was bigger. Yeah. I think Pulte’s just sort of 400. 375. 390. Mayor Furlong: Question on the site plan. When this came to council work session a couple meetings ago, walk me through what’s changed in terms of layout, location. I mean you talk more about from one development to the other. Are all those applicable to what we saw? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think the major change was incorporating the road design itself. Mayor Furlong: Which was fluid. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: We were trying to… Kate Aanenson: …the changing of, and they lost some units. Well from when they started originally they’ve lost quite a few units. I think it started in excess of 500. Incorporating, reducing the grading on that southern end down by Mr. Peterson’s property. Mayor Furlong: Did that affect units or they created. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: They made the walkouts. Kate Aanenson: Yep, they lost some units there. I didn’t show this perspective but this was the other one that you would see. This is the other building so the front is facing. So yes, they did lose some units there and reduce those walls so they’re pretty insignificant. Again trying to make instead of individual communities, tie those together and again I think making a trail. Looking at a trail connection somewhere through there. Maybe on the south side. 53 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: You’re not recommending a road connection. There’s a cul-de-sac there in the southeast. Kate Aanenson: No, and the reason being is if you look at the overall, the AUAR required another collector road to go between Pioneer Trail and connecting with the new collector road. The staff’s concern is in this area here, you may have people that would want to cut through. So you would have cut through traffic that would maybe come up from Pioneer. Cut through the single family and go to this neighborhood, so and it’s close enough I think that these two roads that you know, typically we want to connect neighborhoods. Definitely. That’s always our…but in this circumstance I think you’re over burdening these 3 or 4 single family homes that would be in this area. We’ve talked, we’ll talk about this one here when we get done but that was really the concern there with, because I think there’d be a lot of short cut traffic right through there so I’m not sure if these people benefit, but it would certainly be to all these residents benefit. Mayor Furlong: And part of that is, it would eliminate, keeping traffic on the main roads. Kate Aanenson: And I think…that it keeps it on the, there’s not a long dead end per se on this. This would be the longest portion right here. Mayor Furlong: And what’s that distance? 3 units. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, couple hundred feet probably. Mayor Furlong: You mentioned that trail connection. Is that something that’s currently in this plan or is that being recommended? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that’s this trail connection. Actually the Park and Rec Director recommended that trail and we saw that on the aerial. The color aerial that actually ties up back into the frontage road. Mayor Furlong: That’s on the north side. Kate Aanenson: Correct. There’s also an interior trail shown down in this area, around the pool. That would be another internal trail. And there’s sidewalks, internal sidewalks too along the entire, on all the public streets for this purpose. Mayor Furlong: And parking on the public streets, what are the widths of those streets and it’s on street parking? Kate Aanenson: Yes. All the public streets. Again it would be similar ordinance that we would require for any other public streets as far as how you could park and the hours of operation in the winter and the like. Mayor Furlong: Is there any indentation in the curve or something to get the cars out of the main road? 54 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: It’s hard to see closer. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so you can kind of see it but there is, and this is one of the things that the, it might be better to look at the overall site plan too but that was one of the, yeah. One of the goals that we looked at, the Planning Commission recommended in looking at this was to provide that on street parking. It certainly was a product that’s over here. That had the step up. The front steps. The underground parking, which is different. That you would park in front of, and there is provided parking so. Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question is a normal street width, 30 plus or minus. Paul Oehme: 31 feet. Mayor Furlong: 31. You know you park a car there, a car on each side it’s going to be difficult for traffic to go through. Is there, is the curb widened there so that the parked cars can get out of the main lanes of traffic? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, what there was is, we had this mix. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, that’s true. Kate Aanenson: Yes, there’s adequate right-of-way to get through it’s also another point of traffic calming but what’s provided is these, thank you. That’s the engineering term, bump outs. Mayor Furlong: What are they? Paul Oehme: Just bump outs. Mayor Furlong: Bump outs. Okay. Kate Aanenson: So if you look at this, and it’s hard to see at this scale but there are similar like this. They’ve got those provided. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that I think, that’s what I was asking about so. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So there will be on site, and then there is, between the products parking. Private parking on these long driveways. That would provide access so at the end of it there would be parking. Mayor Furlong: I’ve got some other questions unless anyone else has some here? Paul Oehme: That type of design has been used on other streets, specifically in Chaska has used successfully so we’re amenable to look at it I guess. 55 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think my sense is that it provides thru lanes and allows the parking on street but to get out of the way of traffic. Kate Aanenson: This is the one predominantly that’s been used in the parking in front of the building. It has some additional guest parking because all the parking for this one is that you have two car garage underneath so this would be where you’d park in front. And again accommodations are made in the street and it’s designed for that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson: Kate, at our work session I kind of changed my opinion on the architectural design. I didn’t have the opportunity to compare the previous pictures and renderings. Other than the brick, are they, did the architecture change on, I think I was specifically talking about the Chateau and the engineers…concept has changed? Kate Aanenson: Well additional brick. I think we’ve introduced, I think one of the things that when we do multi family we tend to get the same pale kind of over time they kind of all blend to be the same muted color. Whether they’re all gray or beiges so actually we challenged them to do some stronger color pallets, specifically in the Premiere which is this last one. And so in getting away from those grays so these colors are different than what you see in the iterations. I think if you look at that last slide that showed the buildings from the back that I showed you where the retaining wall was, you can see those stronger colors. And I think that’s kind of where we’re moving a little bit bolder so over time they aren’t all washed and appear the same. So that more brick. Additional landscaping. One of the things you see that’s different about these too and which is why we tried to show these pictures is the landscaping. Even though the driveways, if you look at some of the other projects, they actually have block inbetween these little narrow so we pushed to get landscaping and trees so it’s not just rockscape, so those little things like that. And again we’re commenting mostly the larger stuff, there’s a lot of under plantings that would be incorporated in here too, so that was the goal to push those little things between. There’s also some other open areas on the north side that kind of between the little bit larger things that we’ve challenged them too to come up with some other little gathering places in that neighborhoods whether they’re on the north side. Look at the site plan. Councilman Peterson: Single family, is there an option they can integrate in or is that something we just didn’t want to do? Kate Aanenson: No. It was guided for the either or and they chose to go with the higher. The other project that’s coming in request a land use amendment to go lower. So it’s industrial or medium. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, this is guided medium density and it looks like a lot to me. What would be high density? Kate Aanenson: 12 units an acre. Up to 16. Mayor Furlong: But apartment buildings would be high density or? 56 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Well we haven’t seen anything, we haven’t seen anything like that. I think we always try to push, let them. Sure we could do condos. Actually you had one that you in Lake Susan Hills. The last one, building that went in actually went condo and that’s 3 stories vertical, so they anticipated some of that on Villages on the Pond actually too when we put that project together, we did 3 stories vertical. That question came up when we had the last work session you know, did you want something more vertical or you know, what was the goal. To see some of the feedback was to see more one story type unit. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Life cycle, yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yep, and then the other thing that we challenged them was on that Premiere unit, the last unit that’s got the walkout, that they actually can provide that with a bedroom on the first floor, so the second story can be guest or so that kind of challenge them too. That was some of the questions that you brought up could they have some other type product because you thought that maybe that was all too up and down. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But still how do they access the building? I mean I’m still. Kate Aanenson: That’s at grade. That’s the product that’s at grade. This one right here, so you come, so this would be, it could be an office. It could be guest housing, so the bedroom would be on the first floor so, and then some of these will be walkouts and some of them may be just slab on grade so they would have a basement or a walkout. So 3 stories in the back, or 2 stories. So the bedroom could be on the main floor. That’s one of the options they’re having in their project. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Going back to the exteriors and the brick, the 20%. Can we ask for more? Kate Aanenson: Sure. PUD. That’s the ordinance. So with that we were recommending approval, I don’t know if I got to that part or not. Mayor Furlong: Couple of other questions, and these are questions for clarification I think within the conditions. Condition number 2 speaks about the AUAR cost. Does this include the additional cost that was conducted or additional analysis that was conducted on this property as part of the AUAR? My recollection is that the overall AUAR dealt with all the acreage but that additional analysis was done for this property in particular as part of that same study. Is my recollection correct? There was some specific work done because of this property that we incorporated with the AUAR as a cost savings measure. Kate Aanenson: I’ll verify that. It was wetlands was the additional issue and I’ll check on that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I thought we kind of drilled down a little bit to use a non-technical term on this property in particular. Kate Aanenson: We did. 57 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: But did the overall AUAR then we in addition we did some work here. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, wetlands. Correct. I’d have to double check if that included, because this is based on gross acreage and so I will check on that. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And then let’s see. Condition 33. My computer’s locking up so. Well I’m sorry. Councilman Labatt: You need a hard copy Tom. 33? Mayor Furlong: That’s what I had but I just saw 32. Councilman Labatt: What’s 33 on there? The internal and private trail? Mayor Furlong: No. Excuse me. Why don’t we keep going here. Condition 25 speaks about the hook up charges for sanitary sewer and watermain. This one from reading this correctly, it says that the watermain hook up charges may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of the building. And it’s given an earlier discussion. Is there, or we’re establishing rates here. Is it at the time of building permit. When the plat gets approved that those hook-up charges take those. Kate Aanenson: The rate in charge at the time right, is what it says. Todd Gerhardt: It’s the time of permit. Mayor Furlong: And they’re due at the time of building permit and so I guess my question is. Kate Aanenson: At that rate. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that’s the question. At the rate existing at the time, are due and payable at the then current rates or something like that. At the time of the building permit. Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Bear with me. In terms of the, yeah it is 33 with regard to the private trail north of Block 1. It says be carefully planned to allow convenient access. Would it be beneficial to have that be planned subject to staff approval? Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Assuming that we will make sure that it’s used, or staff will make sure it achieves their goals in terms of connecting up rather than carefully planned. Kate Aanenson: Right. And it’s about tree loss and without, so maintain certain grades. 58 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Sure. And the developer is putting that trail in, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s something I think that, I think it’s a condition of this one. I was going to say, the main trail going through the primary zone is a city trail. Mayor Furlong: From the north/south but this connector trail if you will from this development down to the main trail. Kate Aanenson: Is a requirement of this, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And so if the timing of the main trail is different than the timing of when this trail goes in we would collect escrow I assume or something. To ensure that gets done. …under condition 60, dedication of Outlot A and B. 60. Or a conservation easement will be established over the outlots. Given what we just talked about, I guess my sense is, is there a reason why we wouldn’t just prefer the dedication? Kate Aanenson: That’s what we would prefer. Unless there’s an issue and we haven’t heard back from the developer if they’re opposed to dedication to the city. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And then I didn’t see a condition, and maybe it will come with the site plan but there was an issue about the location of the connector street relative to this property, the property line and the future property and I thought staff report said that right now this layout shows the east/west connector on the property to the east. Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that’s a minor modification but you’re right. Mayor Furlong: So, but the intent there would be that that right-of-way is shared equally between the two properties? Kate Aanenson: Correct. I think it shows up on here. Mayor Furlong: This is the north/south section there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and you can see right through here. The, they don’t quite match. The developer showed it a little bit in Mr. Peterson’s favor. It needs to swing back this way so it will affect, again some of these folks so they lose some. So that would come back for final plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that’s an additional condition or something that we just. Kate Aanenson: Did I have that in here? Mayor Furlong: Maybe you did, I didn’t see it and that’s possible. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think it’s number 4. The engineering had that information that they incorporated it into. But ultimately it does affect the… 59 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good, thank you. Any other questions at this time for staff? No? Is the developer here? Would you like to make a presentation to council? Kevin Clark: Good evening Mayor, council members. My name is Kevin Clark. Director of Land Development of Town and Country Homes… With me tonight, part of our development team is Ed Hasek, Senior Landscape Architect with Westwood Professional Services and Mary Ranum with Fredrickson and Byron. I want to thank you and many people of whom I won’t mention all of them, that have been instrumental to the plan that you have before you this evening, including yourselves, the city staff, consultants, neighbors, park board, and earlier city councils and planning commissions. Especially Kate and her team who have been pivotal in the evolution of not only our plan but also the entire AUAR area. Kate has given you a thorough overview of the history of our application and the many milestones that have been achieved since those earlier meetings in 2002. And a lot has happened since we received that initial concept plan approval in the fall of 2002. At which time we were approved for a medium density residential use of approximately 540 units. This was pretty much the driver of the subsequent AUAR. We have all participated in many meetings, workshops and site tours. The entire 2005 MUSA area has been studied and numerous feasibility studies, engineering assessments and forward planning have been undertaken. In addition the State has begun the Highway 212 improvements and now other properties in the area have initiated planning with the city on other developments in this area. We can agree, a lot of energy and resources have been invested in the planning of this project and the entire 2005 MUSA area. Town and Country is before you this evening requesting preliminary plat approval for our plan that represents 446 multi family units. We are in agreement with the staff’s report and recommendations and believe that we have respectfully addressed all the concerns that have been noted since the beginning of this process. These include protecting natural resources, elevating our architecture, accommodating public infrastructure improvements, and enhancing the community at large. A few of the items we have refined include meeting all the Bluff Creek Overlay District requirements. Establishing grading plan that fits the existing topography. Adjusting our plan to accommodate the alignment of the main collector road. We had asked, touched Mayor on your comment regarding the road alignment. We had asked that the criteria used to site the road as it’s currently going be used at the same time when they site or locate the road rather than splitting the baby down the middle. That…sensitive to the trees, of Bluff Creek, the wetland at that termination point at the north. All the same criteria that led engineering and the consultants to that narrow crossing that now is the focal point for the main collector road. …overlay district creating a central focus for the neighborhood with the pool amenity and other open space areas throughout the site, and most of all we’ve been careful and deliberate to preserve the woods, the bluffs, the wetlands and the flood plain to ensure that these areas are protected for future generations to come. These are all individually very positive developments. When taken collectively create a very exciting and environmentally conscience neighborhood and desire addition to the community. A few of the other attributes include the amount of tree preservation, enhancing and increasing the amount and quality of the wetlands. The pedestrian friendly planning, connecting the bluff areas primarily corridor to the park and… View sheds throughout the site. The fact that Kate mentioned no garages facing city streets. Offering affordable housing. Neighborhood identity. Elevated architecture. Life cycle housing where units have a first floor master bedroom. All these factors add up to a very well thought out plan. We’re committed to making this neighborhood a success story for the city, our neighbors and ourselves. We thank you for your 60 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 consideration of our proposal and we look forward to our continued partnership with the city on this and future opportunities and we would try to answer any questions you may have and I thank you very much for your consideration this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Clark. Questions for Mr. Clark. Question in terms of timing. What’s your anticipating in terms of beginning construction, both at the site and also the length of time for full build out. Kevin Clark: As far as starting, we’ve been certainly over this a period of time and working with staff and primarily working with Paul as he thinks, gather any more intelligence on projects in general and as a design has been coming together. I don’t know how far in the workshop you got on the information that were shared with us on Thursday as far as how it’s progressing. The concept of having a couple different bid lettings and how that would progress. In light of that it was always understood that we would try to get out ahead of that process so the collector road, on at least the west side of the project could be graded so that that utility infrastructure could come through on a sub-graded area and build that right-of-way. That would still be our intent. There’s I guess a lot of meat on the bone yet to be worked out. Just last Thursday gotten the last alignment for the street. Our engineering has really been waiting for a lot of that stuff to happen and also a pipe design hasn’t taken place so if possible, maybe get some grading done this year. That would be ideal. That would really I think lend itself to the plan at Kimley-Horn that is working through. So that’s kind of a starting point. The build out, we anticipate probably at this point a couple, 2-3 phases and working that through. I could see it easily 3-4 year build out period. Mayor Furlong: With the schedule right now would that build out begin in the first phase next year then? Kevin Clark: Building construction potentially to start, understandably it’s going to be depending on services and things like that, if we could start models in May. Potentially be in the market for next fall, as is for builders, those two key dates. Whether it be spring preview or fall parade so then we can bring that, the buying public to a finished model. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Clark? Comments? No? Okay, thank you. Kevin Clark: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: I just want to point out too, Paul and I did challenge to work with the consultants and get the road design. We did ask the property owners if they did have plans, we try to accommodate their needs and looking at where those access points were. Some people are further along than others and where we have the road…we can still accommodate some of those changes specifically the eastern side, but those people…certainly want to incorporate that and that’s one of the different areas and meetings that we’ve had with property owners… Trying to get them so we’re working together to get the best alignment. 61 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay good, thank you. At this time I know that there was listening to the Planning Commission there was a public hearing. There was a public hearing I believe looking at the meetings. Nobody spoke at that time, if that’s correct but if there is desire for public comments at the City Council, we certainly would entertain at this time. If you’d come forward to the podium, state your name and address. Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. 1551 Lyman Boulevard and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak Mayor and council representatives here. Really the concerns I would have are just again coordination of this development with the rest of what will be coming on line. It is the first project coming on line and that you consider what other projects are going to be coming on line and the mix with those right now there’s nothing there but there are projects that are in the works and being talked about and so that hasn’t been discussed as far as how they interact with each other. Couple other things that would be just concerned about. As a neighboring property, just looking at the plan, is if the open space, I went and visited a project in Maplewood that they had and concern I have is just the ones in the middle there. The people who end up owning those in the middle, it’s, they’re very tight feeling as far as your front door opens up to the driveway of the other one. And it’s just, you know if it can be twist and turned, it makes a development. And in the long run from the standpoint of tax value and things in the long run, you know it can maybe be of help. Maybe it’s past that point looking at it but interest wise that would be something that just the open space within the development. Within that and looking at it there’s also the concerns of snow removal because, and I guess I should ask, is the project in Maplewood pretty close as far as distances between properties? In the middle. Kevin Clark: …that neighborhood has…private garages so it would be a different contact. Rick Dorsey: The ones that go into the driveway? Okay. Concerns were just there as far as servicing garbage trucks going up and down when they’re dead ends like that. Maybe it works, I haven’t experienced them but something to think about. Just again open space for kids in the neighborhood. You know a place for them to go. Pedestrian issues would be just the safety issue. The one spot they do have a pool. You know being able to get access to that and I think that’s been talked about already. The other again thing is just looking at the impact of the properties around it, certainly are an issue or concern. I shouldn’t say an issue necessarily. The other things, just a point I noticed on page 17. Just dealing with fees. It talks about 48 acres for the water quality fees. I don’t know if that’s an error or not but a number that’s not anywhere else I saw. Mayor Furlong: Which number was that? Rick Dorsey: On page 17. Talking about the fees for, based on acreage. Like water quality fees. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything else? Very good, thank you. Appreciate your comments. Kate Aanenson: Comment on the street thing real quick. You know in surveying their other product, that was, if we talk about the major changes that came between April and July, one of 62 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 the ones that we’re shaping in the primary zones because the units were too close. The setback was that we actually had them moved up for parking. Because they did have some units that, other communities then do similar, Eden Prairie and Chaska, very narrow driveways but they park in the street. We found that less desirable long term that they should have provide adequate, these again would be public streets. The sidewalk so there’s adequate snow removal and parking. The only place that would be, that’s private would be these to get it to the…so we should have adequate parking in front of the units. And while they are further separated than they are in other communities, again we have a different standard in that we believe that there is adequate guest parking and snow removal and enough area for placing of the day that the garbage man comes, to put those out. And these are some of the areas I talked about where we, other open areas that we’ve challenged the developer to come up with some other opportunities to provide some gathering spots. Whether it’s a gazebo or something like some of those areas… There is guest parking at the end but these buildings, because we made a foot longer driveway than, different than other products you would in other communities. So again the challenge was to make it look different, to meet our standards which we did, and they did. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to comment, public comment on this matter. Issue. Very good. Certainly Mr. Clark. Kevin Clark: When you look at that picture, what that represents the areas north and south is about 34% of the total land. So when we talk about open space and other areas providing not only the pool amenity and the trail section and like that, don’t want to lose contacts in the areas that we’ve been working to preserve and that was really our focus of really the first challenge given to us. I just want to highlight that. Mayor Furlong: You’re referring to Outlot A and B? Kevin Clark: A and B, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Alright. I’ll try to keep moving on this. Let’s bring it back to council. Any follow up questions for staff at this point or discussion points, thoughts. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Thoughts overall I guess. I’m glad that we’ve made some progress on some of the architecture and some of those things. The things still, a couple of things that don’t overly thrill me. It still feels like, when I’m looking at it on the plan and when I’m looking at it up there and if I think I’m driving around is I feel like I’m driving through a military barracks. Although you know Kate you talked about that building as being you know no two views the same and some of that stuff, but one of the things is you know they’re all lined up. They’re all essentially the same footprint. There might be a door on this side or that side or those type of things but I get the military barracks feeling. And the common area with the pool, I’m not overly enamored with those things to begin with and private things like that. And especially this one. As you put it across the collector road, you’ve got a lion share of the development that’s going to have to cross that road to get there. That was talked about I think at the Planning Commission too. I mean I put myself in that spot being you know would I want my kids to cross Kerber Boulevard to go to the swimming pool, and I’m not sure that even with the round about at 63 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 15 miles per hour that you’re, that’s a great solution. I realize that that’s kind of the you know, you’re putting a major roadway through the middle of the development. I don’t know what the solution there is necessarily but something that I’d like to see talked about or addressed or something if we go forward with this between now and final to work on that a little bit. So the use, it’s a good. The zoning I guess it’s a medium density. I’m at a toss up there with the industrial piece. I think we need to work real hard at not letting that go. We’ve had several, or a couple of other things in this area where we’ve looked at, had the option of going one way or the other and we’ve always kind of held that industrial sacred as well so we’ve got to search out other spots in here to, or throughout the city to kind of offset that as we go forward too so we don’t give up those opportunities, but I think we’ve made some progress so that’s a good thing but I feel like we’ve still got some work to do here before we’re done. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. You want to respond quickly on that issue of the, that Councilman Lundquist brought up in terms of the industrial. Other opportunities. Kate Aanenson: No, again I spoke to that a little bit in the beginning with the over at Mr. Peterson’s property who, a lot of right-of-way was taken for the possible future interchange across the new 41 interchange so in looking at the industrial, the reason that it was given that at the time was that was anticipated. This is before we did the frontage road. This is way back looking at the comp plan. Why we gave it two different designs. Looking at if the interchange did go there, then maybe this would be suitable. As it turns out, that interchange got pushed so far back, we don’t even know if that’s where it’s going in, so looking at the suitability and the cut through traffic, did it make more sense or on a different somewhere else is kind of what we struggled with, and what the neighbors across the street wanted. How that all blended in, so. Councilman Lundquist: I just want to make sure that we’re not double standard on ourselves. You know we’ve had other times when we’ve looked at things that are very similar to this and said we’re not going to go there because we value that. We don’t have a lot of industrial space and we value that so let’s hold ourselves to the same standard there as well. But understand where you’re at. Kate Aanenson: Yep, yeah. And I just want to comment too on the barracks comment because it’s, if you look at any multi family from an aerial view, you’re going to see that and you looked at a lot of different versions of moving those around and you can try to reorient it and it gets too busy or you can try to make it streamline and do a straight line. I think that was really why we tried with these perspectives was to, gave up, is to try to look, what are you going to see going down the street. Zooming in towards the pool and all those amenity. You know how’s it going to feel coming in and what are you going to see? Again with the color pallet and the orientation, then you’re looking at narrow. I think that takes away from that top down view of all orientated and the landscaping trying to soften that and that’s why we really put the challenge to them with color…and materials and the landscaping to soften that top down view look. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other comments or discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think we have 91 acres of opportunity and I don’t know if we’re necessarily making the best of the opportunity that we have. I think that what I see is 64 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 the same design over and over again. I just think it has so much more potential for what it could be. Multi family housing is something we need in this city, but I think we have one opportunity to do this right and I think, I don’t think we’re doing it right. I think it’s just too much of the same thing. Too much repetition and when I talked about life cycle and yes, there is a, some units with one story master bedrooms, but that’s not really what I meant. There are townhouses or there are condos that really do fit that life cycle and I just don’t think that these did it. That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: 4 years ago when we, 4 or 5. I lose track after a while, when this was in front of us for conceptual approval I was reticent at the time to change it from industrial. I can’t even recall whether I voted for it or not but I know I’ve articulated my concern about moving anything from, out of industrial into anything else. And as I usually state, it needs to be a real compelling reason for me to do it. I’ve already articulated some concerns I’ve got about is this that different. A couple products I really think are different and add something new to Chanhassen… Being the Majestic is an architectural interesting building. The Regency’s architectural interest, you don’t see that in Chanhassen. The other which is the majority of the development is the Chateau and the Premiere which we can see that anywhere… So that in and of itself doesn’t present me with a compelling reason to say we should move forward with this. It gives me the feeling of big and boxy, you know both in design and in layout. Whether it’s a barracks. It’s just big. I don’t know whether I’m articulating that…big developments as much as if it’s going to be big, I really think it’s got to be dramatic change in look and feel throughout the acres. Whether it’s 91 or 60 something that are usable. …work with the developer. Give them the task of following the comprehensive plan. I think they’ve done that. I think they’ve done some great things with the areas…working with the bluff. A lot’s been accomplished but yet at the end of the day I want to be able to look at it and say, I like this development. This was what we need in Chanhassen and it’s going to make people driving by and driving through it feel good about living in Chanhassen. We’re not there from my perspective. Moving it from industrial, I want to have a higher standard and we’re not there. It’s just too big and boxy and there’s not uniqueness for me to vote for it. I’d like to say otherwise but I’m obligated to represent what I believe the people want is something different. This is the same old multi family and again we’re halfway there. So it’s a big enough development where I think we can ask for all of it… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. As I look at this and try to compare it from stuff in the past and I may be close. You always can’t compare it exactly. I guess I don’t disagree with Mr. Lundquist’s visual interpretation of barracks. Or Bethany’s best use of 91 acres. I’m not, it definitely, there’s a need for a development like this in the city. But I’m not too hung up on the industrial, losing that point. But when you look at, you know it just seems to be like they’re just trying to put too much in the area. And I’d like to see more open space. You know Pulte I think did a nice job with creating some more common areas. Park areas. I think Brian had talked about the pool on the south side of the collector with the vast majority on the north of that. Maybe a second pool up north. Granted we’re just at preliminary here but it’s, it’s getting there but is it perfect? No. So I’m not sure but I’ll stop. 65 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: We’re not there yet though. Mayor Furlong: Well I can certainly, I think in terms and along with Councilman Lundquist and Labatt in terms of comfort with going forward with the medium density zoning. I can certainly do that. The reason that there are dual uses provided to land is obviously to provide flexibility and also in the property owners as well as for flexibility with the city in terms of land use. I know when this came through as a concept, Councilman Peterson you’re absolutely right. You did make a point of saying if this goes this way we’ve got to find it somewhere else. Maybe that’s some comfort that would help in terms of what those other opportunities are and where they are. In terms of the way out and it’s not there yet, I think as a council it would be incumbent upon us perhaps to provide some direction to the developer and staff to say what’s it going to take to get there. And we’ve done that a little bit in terms of what’s not there but you know if there’s, while we may, I mean where are there opportunities? I think overall from what I hear is there are elements in this development that don’t exist in other developments in neighboring cities. Whether that’s the on street parking and when they visit a friend, relative, parking in these type of developments is very difficult. And that’s why I was asking the question about the on street parking. It’s out of the normal public streets. Having public streets through these developments I don’t think is a given either, and I think there’s benefit to having that and not just a series of private streets, so I think there are a lot of elements there that say that this is better than what we’ve seen, so to the extent that as a council we think there needs to be more, I think we need to articulate that. My sense is that we’ve got kind of the different levels of comfort here, in terms of this and so how do we gain enough comfort to try to come up with something that works and to give some good direction to staff and to the developer. You’ve got a collector road going right through the middle of this development. It’s going to be difficult, unless we duplicate all the amenities on both sides not to have access, so is that pedestrian crossings at the public streets or something that provides some safety elements there, and let’s give them that information. And are we willing from a PUD standpoint, and I’m not recommending but I’m saying, what are the elements here that we’re willing to give up in the PUD so that we can gain other aspects? Now if the question is, you know the amenities of the pool and the recreation area, if that’s something that we don’t think is necessary, we’d rather use that space and spread them out a little bit, if that’s something that we’re looking for, let’s give them some of that. That feedback to help them get them to where we think they need to be. So I would throw that back to my fellow council members to give perhaps some more direction here. I don’t see this coming to terms tonight, and that’s fine. I’ve got no problem with that but I think there are some very good elements here and I think this can be an asset to the city in terms of the development and so I’m not, I certainly don’t think that this is in such a state that we need to say no. I think that would be a wrong position to take. But a right position would be to give some feedback and some direction if necessary so I guess I would throw it back to my fellow council members and maybe provide some direction or what are some of the give and takes that we’re looking for? What are some of the things that we want to get that development to where as a council we want it to be? Thoughts? Comments. Councilman Peterson: I’ve already articulated some of them. We’ve got 16 buildings of one design and a dozen of the other and half dozen or almost a dozen of another one. From my 66 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 perspective I think we need different kinds. Not as many of the same thing. Break it up. Move it around. Councilman Lundquist: Reorient. Councilman Peterson: Reorient and in other words…I just feel like I’m in too tight of a neighborhood and the architecture that we’ve already talked about. It’s less big and boxy. Councilman Lundquist: It is an opportunity to mix up the different, instead of grouping them by architectural style, that helps mix them up with the different architectural styles. Different size buildings. Takes away that, gives it some more point of difference in there rather than you’ve got these blocks of 7 or 8 of the same building in one area. Maybe they’re the same size building. Maybe there’s different sizes, mix and match in there. And the pool open space thing. It’s not, that’s not a reason for me to say yes or no. It’s just something that I’m raising to say, that’s something that we need to be aware of. That we need to have a solution or an idea for. Whether it’s a crosswalk or a flashing yellow light or whatever it is, if we’re going to have that amenity that’s going to attract people, they’ve got to be aware that there’s a major hazard going through the middle of that thing. So I guess I don’t know what the answer is there but it’s something that we’ve got to be aware of and come up with something for it. Mayor Furlong: Fair enough. Other thoughts or direction. Councilman Lundquist: And I’m comfortable with the designation of the PUD and that. Again it’s not to losing the industrial is not a reason for me to say no. I’m comfortable with that. I think it probably fits better with the neighbors across the street in Chaska there so, I think this is where we want to go. But there’s some opportunity here that you talked about so I’m very comfortable with the direction. Just not the final product yet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or direction? Councilman Labatt: You know as I look at, I’m going to take this a little bit. North of the collector road, you know, mix and match up there a little bit and move stuff around to get a little flow through it rather than rows. But in all honesty guys, and Bethany. I’m really lost south of the road. I mean as I’m looking at the zoom, you have one cul-de-sac coming down a bunch of little spur streets, or private streets. And you’re missing some flow and some continuity down there. It looks like it’s just kind of. Kate Aanenson: Well here’s an example of when we try to mix it up. Here’s where we try to mix it up so you’ve got. Councilman Labatt: Yeah but there’s no road going there. It’s a dead end right? Kate Aanenson: But you have to have this driveway here because these have underground parking so this driveway accommodates underground parking. So and you have to match the grades of some of the products so that’s the complexity of doing an overall design. So in this area, these are all mixed up and that was the goal we were trying to accomplish so. 67 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: I like, personally I like that piece. More the piece that I have an issue with is this on the north where it’s. I feel like I’m at Fort Snelling. Councilman Labatt: What’s on the Audubon side? I’m looking at it upside down so. Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry. Councilman Labatt: On the Audubon side of that lower, or the southern section then. Kate Aanenson: So again the goal here was to have no garages facing the street so they have some of the other, so you’ve got the narrower side of one product here so it’s not all the same product going down the street, which was the goal. We go back to the forms she had, so the goal is that you don’t look at the same. So the goal was that you didn’t look at the entire, so you’ve got a different look here. A different look here. Again these units in this area here are the front where the porches are. The active side. The most active articulated, the porch side of the building. The garages are to the back so they’re oriented that way. Then you’d have that same product here and then it’s mixed up so that was the challenge. Again we put the narrower side here so again along this street you’re not looking at the same product along this street. Again not the garage side so you’re looking at the narrowest part of those buildings. That was kind of the framework that we started with to kind of do the edges. We saw, we worked with a lot of different iterations. The first one actually that came in actually had facing the street, you couldn’t have individual driveways coming off a collector road before we knew that was going to be a collector road, so we really worked hard to kind of develop these edges first and then kind of do the infill. Now that’s set in motion by grading, matching grades with similar types and you have to share a driveway or that sort of thing, so that’s a drawback. But there is a similar one along the edges to look at. So I’m assuming this was more you’re getting into the. Mayor Furlong: Is that the boxy area there? So angling or looking at that area. Councilman Lundquist, you have. Kate Aanenson: If that’s helpful. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Councilman Lundquist: And then the area right behind it seems to be, to the east of it there, yeah. Seems to be all the same thing too. Mayor Furlong: Just in rows. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, and if those are different buildings and different, you know just as the same footprint, then I guess that’s my misinterpretation but. Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, there’s a different color pallet. Councilman Lundquist: Right, but it’s essentially the same box. 68 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Some of them are sixes and some of them are fours. Todd Gerhardt: Same product. Kate Aanenson: Same product, yeah. Councilman Peterson: Is there a possibility of adding a fifth or sixth type of home? Another option that changes the economics. Kate Aanenson: Well they built two products that they hadn’t done before so we’ve introduced two. Councilman Peterson: Those were the two that I liked. Kate Aanenson: They are the two? Councilman Peterson: Thought you could… Kate Aanenson: Lucky me. So yeah, I think everybody’s got a different idea so you know that’s the challenge here is trying to respond to you know is it 6… I think part of it is maybe this was helpful for the Planning Commission. They actually went to the site and I turned on the computer and looking at. We don’t have anything else in the city that has this much variety and I am concerned about making it too busy. You know if you look at most projects, as other developers learn, it’s pretty much more of the same. Even if you look at the apartments that we have in town, they’re the same. I just don’t want to make it too loud. Trying to find that balance so I’ve got other feedback now looking at the orientation… Kevin Clark: Could I just answer a question? Mayor Furlong: Certainly Mr. Clark. Kevin Clark: I think one of the products you mentioned Councilman Peterson is a traditional townhome and that’s as close as you can get to like a single family home and provide that type of housing. Yet it’s limited in some of it’s architecture because you come into a garage, you have an entryway and then your living space is on the back. But I think that’s a key piece in the mix of housing in here and so what we talked about is working to a color pallet and again accentuating that. And I think the other thing when you talk about mixing it up is, we are sensitive too of having some critical mass. If we’re going to come in and merchandise, build models and all this other stuff, you throw too many potential products in there, that’s not a good economic model and it’s not a good economic model for anybody to drive you forward because you want to be successful. You don’t want to have products that aren’t selling so I caution you I guess on getting it too busy by introducing or looking to have a whole variety of products. Kate Aanenson: We can look at it. 69 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or direction? Councilwoman Tjornhom, anything to add? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think I said… Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there anything else at this point? Kate Aanenson: I think I’d like to point out that, just ask Town and Country. We’re at the end. They keep extending it because we’ve been making a lot of different changes but I’m at like the th 15 is their last extension so if we can just ask for them to give us additional time. Mayor Furlong: Do we need that in writing this evening? Kate Aanenson: …so I’m not sure what they’re, you know I’m assuming it will be with 3 or 4 weeks at least before we get a plan back. Todd Gerhardt: That’s our first meeting in September. Kate Aanenson: Probably. Todd Gerhardt: Good thing you have your attorney here to review it tonight. Mayor Furlong: Provide us with sufficient time I think is, which would be, what is 45? I don’t know. We could ask for 45 or 60 days. Does that give us, that gives us until the second meeting in September? Mr. Miller? How many days to get us to the second meeting in September for sure. We’ve got a three week in there. Justin Miller: Yeah, that will get us to the second meeting in September. Mayor Furlong: And how many days after that? Todd Gerhardt: You want to pick a date or days? Kate Aanenson: If we can get additional time, I’m sure we’ll get it. Mayor Furlong: I mean we’re making progress in the right direction so I think. (Staff and the applicant clarified the length of time extension.) th Mayor Furlong: September 30. Okay. Alright. Seeing that…waiting to receive the paper th back. Okay, so we’re good til September 30? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. thth Mayor Furlong: So we’ve got the 12 and then 14 after that, so the 26. Okay. th Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table this item until September 26 meeting. 70 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: On or before. Councilman Lundquist: Or before. Mayor Furlong: On or before. If they’re ready to come back earlier. th Councilman Lundquist: On or before the 26 of September. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision of 6 blocks and 69 buildings including 446 units, 3 Outlots A, B & C which represent the Overlay District and 7 common lots of 91.02 acres, conditional uses for the development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alteration of the Flood Plain and a Wetland Alteration Permit, Liberty on Bluff Creek, Planning Case No. 05-11. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 PIONEER TRAIL; PETERSON BLUFF; J. EDWIN CHADWICK, LLC; PLANNING CASE NO. 04-20. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This subject property is 71 acres and they’re requesting a PUD. Obviously noting what’s happening to the west of them, want to tie into that. Again this property also has dual guiding. These are medium density, or industrial. The applicant is requesting a low density zoning which would require a land use amendment. Again this is concept approval. I’m not going to go through all of the issues in here. It does require a 4/5 as per city code vote. The concept doesn’t have legal standing. What the applicant is looking for is they would like to again proceed at a relatively fast time track to develop this property. The project you have in the packet reflects what they submitted probably 6 to 8 weeks ago but it doesn’t reflect the current layout as proposed with the new road. As shown on this. They’re proposing to do some twin homes and predominantly single family. Again they’ll be a tie into the collector road to the north and then as I indicated the AUAR requires this connection down to Pioneer with single family. So when you’re looking at this site plan, we haven’t looked at it to scale it. To look at it. That will be the next level. Really what we’re here to discuss is the land use itself and if we were to stay with industrial, over here we have this little remnant piece here. Again we looked at that with the change in grades, connecting to so really you’re into this area right here. From the very beginning Mr. Peterson’s requested residential but this isn’t showing it here. What does show up on the overall flood plain, it is a significant amount of property in the flood plain. If you look at the computation that’s in your report here, Mr. Peterson’s property would be, as I indicated 70 acres. Quite a bit of it is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Actually approximately 29 acres and quite a bit of it was bought or acquired by MnDot. Approximately 43 acres so of his entire piece that goes all the way over, it’s encumbered by 71 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 either right-of-way or flood plain so we had this little remnant piece. We think this makes a good transition between the two. Again I’m going to see how that lays out exactly and again the concept is really to get some direction from the council on whether you would consider the low density, which would be up to 4 units an acre. It may come back at a different configuration, iteration, how they see in making a transition too so with that, the staff is recommending approval of the concept again based on the fact that if this was residential, we think that the two kind of partner together based on the fact that this creates that bigger neighborhood. With that I am recommending approval of the concept and I’d be happy. I did mention that the Planning Commission also recommended conceptual approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Discussion or questions for staff. Excuse me. Councilman Lundquist: So Kate right now it’s guided office industrial or a combination of? Either or? Kate Aanenson: Correct, half and half. And what they’re requesting is…land use because you’re actually going down. Our comp plan says you have to meet the minimum so to go through the less than, under 4 units an acre would require a land use amendment. So that would come with the next stage. Councilman Lundquist: So how much was guided, how much was guided industrial? How much was guided. Kate Aanenson: The way they put it in the comprehensive plan was that, if it was 40 buildable, 20 of it would be industrial. 20 would be multi family so it’d be 20 apiece. So again, so we had looked at whether it was ever on this side of the road would blend into that. If we were to do that, that would be the portion. Todd Gerhardt: And Kate, how are you proposing to make up that 20 acres? Kate Aanenson: We do have a proposal that’s coming in. Two different proposals. One is 5 acres. 4 ½. And another one at 10 acres that’s coming in for a request to go to actually, one would be pure office. And the other one would be probably more, and it would also be office. So they’re both office. Pure offices. About 15 acres. Mayor Furlong: About 15. Excuse me, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Please. Councilwoman Tjornhom: What are those properties guided now? Kate Aanenson: Both guided residential. But they’re in, I believe in good location that makes good transitions with appropriate buffering. And office, not industrial. Just office… Yeah. I think they’ll both be very palatable and accepted in the neighborhoods. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Kate, a couple questions I guess in terms of layout and the thought process used. The first is the cul-de-sac up on the northern part of the piece here. The 72 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 two cul-de-sacs I guess. Would it make sense to look at the eastern cul-de-sac there down to connect with the road below it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we had mentioned that to them. And that’s just going to be the final design. But agreed, they should connect that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And maybe I’m jumping ahead past the level that we should be asking for a concept but in terms of the location of the twin homes on the north versus, and single family on the south where the right-of-way is along the south, is that, I mean my observation was to possibly flip those. To move the twin homes to the southern part of the property along with 212 right-of-way and move the single family to the north. Kate Aanenson: To be perfectly honest with you, we haven’t looked at it that close. We just asked them to give us what they’ve got to date that matches the road alignment because we wanted to look at where the touchdown points were. What they submitted is actually completely different with a different road alignment, so really what we’re looking at is to give them some direction for the next go around so if your direction would be maybe to look at putting better transitions, I think that’s appropriate that…where there’s greater density on the one side. I think that’s the direction we’re looking for. But we didn’t comment too much on that but I think that’s very appropriate. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess the question is, is that the comment at this point at the concept plan or is that… Kate Aanenson: Sure. No, I think to comment now so when they come back at the next level… Mayor Furlong: We’re trying to build efficiency into this process. Kate Aanenson: They’re set to go. Mayor Furlong: I don’t know if we can do that. Todd Gerhardt: Maybe we should break it up, move it around… Councilman Lundquist: We haven’t done anything else tonight. Let’s just table it now. Mayor Furlong: We approved the minutes from the prior meeting. That being said, I guess those are a couple observations and I would defer to the better planners in the group about the transition period to the western property line, as well as the right-of-way on the bottom and the location of the twin homes versus the single. And certainly the connection of those, there’s no reason I believe to leave those two cul-de-sacs up there by themselves. We’re still trying to build a city here I think in terms of patchwork of developments. So those are a couple of initial comments or questions I guess I’m asking. I think I’m getting into comments. Other questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: I agree with your comments. No questions. 73 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Is the applicant here this evening? If you’d like to address the council. Good evening. Thank you for waiting. John Chadwick: Thanks for letting me be here. My name’s John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle here on behalf of the Peterson family. Happy to be here. Thanks for our mayor, staff. We’ve all been working on this for quite a while and it’s great. We’re here to do our very best to build a signature project for the city. You’re sitting at number 16. Why can’t we advance a little bit. Let’s do that and as far as your Money Magazine rating. Councilman Lundquist: You need to build a restaurant. John Chadwick: I’ll get back to you on that. But Kate was correct, she said you know we put this together pretty fast. We got the, I think Thursday we got the diagrams from Mr. Horn as far as where the road would be and that’s great. We’re happy to respond as very fast as we can. Comments well taken as far as connectivity and do you want to move those in different areas? Absolutely that is something to look at. Very blessed with beautiful views on this site. A lot of topography. A lot of Bluff Creek overlay. A lot of congruity of your park system here. And what I’m leading up to is it’d be a shame to put that in there industrial between two residential, potential residential areas with all of the relief that we have there. I’ll come back to that in a minute. As far as you know the kind of layout and we’ve got some cul-de-sacs and a beautiful view. We had great support out of Planning Commission. It was kind of like gee I want to get that tape so when we have a bad day I can put that back in and listen to that. They were very kind to us. And I thank your compatriots on that commission. Additionally Mr. Horn said well I can see in that cul-de-sac where I want to have my lot and that was totally unsolicited and I’ll take these things so we’re very happy and we’re very happy to work with the staff extensively on this and want to continue to do that. And we’re here you know kind of in support, well very much in support of AUAR and these roads that are being built here and in order to do our part we have to have a revenue in, have a revenue out to support that. A year and a half ago I think I was here and was mentioning to Sever, I said you know Sever you’ve got to go along with these road projects. I know sometimes it gets a little nervous. Our family had to, was happy to go along with some out in the Shakopee area. Didn’t know quite how it was going to turn out. It turned out just great. You see you’ve got to be a little patient, have a little faith and here you go. And to date that has been a good move and we want to continue that to be a good move. Our desire would be to keep moving and keep pace with you and the whole team here and that’s, let’s get a concept plan rolling and then beyond that then is the next step where we’ve got to get our preliminary plat in order. And in order to do all of that, we need some, well obviously we need some direction from your folks here tonight and respectfully I would ask, if you look at the conditions, the first condition is number 1 and that says, gosh we need to come up. I guess all have been addressed here as far as what are you going to do about industrial, but we can’t really move forward if we don’t know what we’re doing. If that’s a hold out over our head. I think you can understand that. So if we could respectfully ask that that maybe be stricken or reconsidered or something, that way we can get the rest of the team moving and keep, and continue to keep pace with what you folks would like to do. Beyond that looking for input. Suggestions. Want to build a nice project. Get this connectivity going and support what’s, a lot of effort that’s gone forth on behalf of the city, want to continue to support that so. If there’s questions, I’ll take them. Otherwise I’ll sit down. 74 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Any questions for, no? Very good, thank you. If there’s anybody that wishes to provide public comment on this matter, the council would be happy to entertain that at this time. Nobody? Okay. Very good. Let’s bring it back to council for additional questions or comments. Keep it moving here. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I would not disagree with the comments you made before Mr. Mayor. But this one, I’m going to just hold to the, not necessarily the industrial piece for this property given some of the things that Mr. Chadwick said too as well as some of the views and things, but it seems to be a theme tonight at least that we’re trading this stuff out for the industrial for the residential so. I would, my preference would be to hold off on this until either we see some of the other parcels that Kate that you were talking about. Some of the others so we’ve got some idea on where we’re going to start to trade some of this, some of these pieces out and given that the right-of-way is right there on the highway, the best spot we’re going to have for office industrial I think is going to be along the highway I believe and so before we put twin homes or single family homes or something in there, take a serious look at that so I need some more information or assurance that we’re not just going to continue to replace our industrial guidance with residential on those choices. When we’ve got a choice we seem to be going more and more residential so. Got to have a mix there. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other comments. Discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think I disagree. I think that it’s…to get into the whole scheme of what’s developing around this area. And Kate, did you tell me or did I hear that you did trade spaces. That you did? Kate Aanenson: No. We’re working on one right now. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. So that’s not chiseled in stone as far as industrial. Kate Aanenson: As far as office, correct… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I’d play back my statement from the previous presentation I guess it was. The item before on the agenda. That I’m not, it doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo but it’s got to be distinctive and unique for me to make a decision to move it out of industrial. To Councilman Lundquist’s point, there are, I mean this is a pretty good area for industrial because of the access points so it’s even further reason to leave it but I’m not adverse to seeing a product and saying that that is what the people of Chanhassen are looking for and say yes without replacing it. It’s more of a task for staff to let them run after the industrial as best we can. Mayor Furlong: The access point you’re referring to is off Pioneer Trail? Councilman Lundquist: 212. 75 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Peterson: If it can be accessed there. I don’t know the elevations and. Mayor Furlong: Well the road map with the AUAR includes that connector coming south from the east/west connector down to Pioneer Trail, so that’s where the AUAR and it was put in place with some development, either industrial or medium density here. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: I agree with Bethany. This would be the ideal piece of property for residential and I like the fact that we have some twin homes for some empty nesters and a nice, quiet little nitch. And then some obvious nice single family that are out overlooking a beautiful Bluff Creek primary zone. So I like it. Mr. Chadwick talking about the topography down there and how this would be a very unique spot for some single family spots, I could strongly support that change. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Question for Ms. Aanenson. Condition 1, which was raised by the applicant. That requires another property within the 2005 AUAR to request a change. Are the properties that you’re considering, are they within the 2005 AUAR? Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: They’re not. Kate Aanenson: No. Mayor Furlong: So something less restrictive there. One might gain a little more comfort based on the comments I’m hearing, you know really we don’t, you’ve always preached to us that don’t just look at the AUAR for land use. We look at the entire city and so to the extent that we have other parcels, property owners that are looking to change to industrial throughout the city, may address Councilman Lundquist and Peterson, some of your concerns there. And that doesn’t do anything about the character and what’s, what they might come back with on the site plan. Excuse me, go ahead. Councilman Peterson: To that point, I don’t know if it’s incumbent upon the developer to find industrial land. Hence this may be in and of itself inappropriate condition. That if they present to us a distinctively unique opportunity for a new housing stock that fits into there, that’s our obligation to find it, not their’s. So I guess maybe I agree with their point. Councilman Lundquist: I would concur as well. Mayor Furlong: To? 76 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Peterson: To remain in it’s current state. It’s still going to be incumbent upon them. You know I’m not saying that I’m not granting the ability to move it away from industrial. I’m saying it’s not, they shouldn’t be obligated to replace it. Mayor Furlong: Understand. Councilman Lundquist: I think if you were to change, Mr. Mayor if you were to change, to remove that 2005 AUAR and just say property requesting an industrial land use within the city, I still wouldn’t be in support because of what Mr. Peterson said. I mean not necessarily, not only is it I don’t think incumbent upon that, us to hold that developer hostage per se until we can find something like that but you know, again it’s, I’m not sure it’s the appropriate condition at all so I would favor removing it but wouldn’t favor supporting the recommendation right now until we’ve got some other information about what our options are for other industrial. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. What obligation do we place on ourselves or future councils if any with regard to the concept plan? Kate Aanenson: Concept plans have no legal standing. What the goal is to give them clear direction and I guess what the staff was looking at, what I heard is that you wanted them to come back just as you did on the other one, to come back with something compelling. Even if it’s the lower density, something compelling need and that’s our obligation to show you where those other sites were. So if you gave them conceptual approval with those marching orders before they came back. Again part of the goal of this, of doing this development, we’re working together. As they’re working through the design we’re working with these road designs to get these out that work…somewhat similar tracks so certainly I think we can accomplish both those goals and we heard some direction from the mayor regarding those transition areas. Looking at the single family type product, what that should be to accomplish that and it’s my job to show you where those other industrial or office uses of the land to make up that difference. Mayor Furlong: And I would I guess comment, agree with Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Peterson in that there’s got to be a compelling reason there and understanding of how, from a tax base standpoint we don’t get in a situation where we’re always, we’re always reducing this area of our land use. At the same time I can’t help but say that, I can’t, I wouldn’t be opposed to this type of development under the condition that that land use is changed out of residential someplace else. So to the extent that that’s a condition or an understanding of the concept plan, I think it’d be nice to put that in there. Maybe not as a condition but as an understanding somehow that the concept is agreeable but that there are uncontrollable factors that we’re looking at elsewhere in the city for replacement land. And it is uncontrollable. On the developer’s part. Certainly we can affect that as we look for it but from a concept standpoint I can, you know it certainly seems to work with what’s around it as well so, I can see going forward here as long as that understanding is there that, some uniqueness as Councilman Peterson mentioned. Compelling reasons to reduce the commercial industrial but to Councilman Lundquist’s request, clearly identifying the exchanged land use somewhere else within the city and in so doing, taking out with that understanding, taking, take out item number one. 77 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Kate Aanenson: And just to be clear on top of page 3…top of page 3 (b) it says, approval of the concept plan shall not obligate the city to approve any final plans thereof or rezone so…to give them direction to come back. Todd Gerhardt: My only confusion in this is how much of a commitment do you need on these other parcels? I mean we don’t have, I mean we’ve talked to people but we don’t have applications in and you know some of them are kind of long term. Councilman Lundquist: I feel a little bit not really comfortable going forward right now. I think it’s just, I wouldn’t feel comfortable giving this developer the direction that yeah, we like this and go ahead. Invest the time and resources. Spend your money. Do something that we could be 2 years down the road and who knows what’s going to happen and we continue to hold them hostage in essence for something that I think I’m not, I can’t lay that out there because I’m not comfortable. There’s a lot of things that need to happen for me to say yeah, I think this is the way to go here so I feel obligated to not say yes and you know, not encourage further resources and other expenditures and effort by the developer to only to come back and be rejected or something like that so I’m not against what’s shown on the paper right now. I just think there’s too many other unknowns and I can’t say yes to the concept right now without some other things falling into place. Councilman Peterson: I think one of which is that this council really hasn’t sat down and spent any time reviewing and diagnosing the impact of taking out industrial. I think that may be something Todd that put on the agenda and when we talk about the implications of that, I might be able to make a more informed decision after we spend some time talking about it. Mayor Furlong: And to your point Councilman Peterson, I know that was a discussion but time moves fast. It was probably a couple years ago or more when we were working with the Key Financial Strategies talking about tax capacity and balancing from where we were, where we are now. I don’t know how much additional development has occurred since we last did that but again I’m just going off memory. It’s probably been, it was probably 2003. I don’t know that it was last year that we did that. We finalized the Key Financial Strategies in ’03 so that was probably the last time we sat down so it might be worthwhile. Todd Gerhardt: We can do that. Mayor Furlong: Is there a desire at this point to take action on this concept plan with that discussion in mind? Thoughts? Let me ask this question. Councilman Labatt: Then the applicant would. Mayor Furlong: Let me ask you a question. What’s the timing in terms of the, if this concept plan were approved tonight, what’s your expected time in terms of coming back with a site plan? John Chadwick: Just as soon as possible sir. And appreciate the…we’re really trying to dovetail with everything that’s going on so we’ve been going like fury to get here and we want to continue that pace… And honestly there’s already 28 industrial parks sandwiched in here. I 78 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 totally understand and respect the need for industrial land but being this interchange didn’t go there, maybe it belongs some place where there’s better access for semi trucks not mixing in with Tonka Toys. So there is…challenge for the city out there to find the area to put it and based on, I’m not totally convinced with all the beautiful views and where it’s situated now, with the way this all has been developed, that this would be… Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilman Peterson: Well we don’t have consensus I don’t think and I’m comfortable having them move ahead if they feel as though they can present something that is extraordinary then my need to replace it is less. So I think that if we sat down and talked about it some more I may change my mind but probably not. Councilman Labatt: So you’re okay with re-wording number 1 or eliminating it? Councilman Peterson: Yeah they already know that it needs to be rezoned and they’ve already heard tonight what it’s going to take to be rezoned, which from my perspective when the previous offer came, wasn’t there yet. Councilman Labatt: Well no, no. The extraordinary, but in order about replacing the. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I’m just looking, all I want them to, a very descriptive adjective to give them a higher standard so. Mayor Furlong: It went beyond compelling. Councilman Peterson: Exactly. I’m tired of using that word now. Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess my thought there would be, clearly the information’s there. It’s on the record. Making an approval here conditioned upon some other property owner I think is not appropriate. I think taking out number 1 is appropriate. And we’ll take out number 1 even though the sense of the council should be very clear at this point and with that, if there’s a desire to go ahead with a motion, certainly entertain that at this time. Councilman Labatt: I’ll move that we approve for the concept PUD with the following conditions, 2 through. Councilman Peterson: 26. Councilman Labatt: 26. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. 79 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the Concept PUD with the following conditions: 1.Implementation of the AUAR recommendations. 2.The preliminary plat plans must incorporate the updated alignment of the east-west collector street and the proposed roundabout. 3.Turn lane requirements and the typical street section shown in preliminary plans must be consistent with the “2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report” recommendations. 4.A preliminary utility plan must be submitted with the preliminary plans and must comply with the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain design shown in the “2005 MUSA Area Expansion Improvements Feasibility Report”. 5.A pressure reducing valve is required within the development and must be shown on the preliminary utility plan. 6.The preliminary utility plan must include lateral storm sewer to service the proposed development. 7.The developer’s engineer must work with Town & Country’s engineer to minimize the amount and/or height of retaining walls to the maximum extent possible. 8.The attached single-family townhome buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 9.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 10.Each unit/lot must be provided with separate utility services. 11.Complete proposed site, grading and utility plans must be submitted to determine more detailed requirements. 12.The City will be seeking park fees in lieu of land dedication on the Peterson parcel. 13.A report documenting the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual must be submitted to the City. 80 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 14.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) must be maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. A wetland buffer 20 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around all Natural wetlands. 15.Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 16.All structures must be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback should be shown on the plans. 17.Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) must be shown on the plans and preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 18.The primary corridor boundary and the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor are not shown on the plans. The plans should be revised to show the primary corridor and the setback. 19.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures must meet the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. 20.Based on the existing canopy coverage for the site, the developer will need to meet minimum planting requirements. 21.Bufferyard planting will be required along the south and west property lines. 22.Landscaping for the attached housing area should include native species for overstory and foundation plantings as well as non-native, ornamental selections. 23.Large groupings of materials will help extend the natural areas into the developed sites and create privacy for residents. 24.A strong, boulevard tree planting element is recommended within the development and required along any collector roads. 25.The development should establish viewsheds to be preserved as part of the development.” All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 81 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 04-08. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, just so we know the timing here. Is there timing deadlines associated with the bids here? Todd Gerhardt: Roger and I were discussing this. Whatever was in the bid specs. Is there anything in the bid specs on awarding? Councilman Peterson: How long can you hold the bid? thth Jim Norton: The date was June 30 so August 30. th Mayor Furlong: August 30. Okay. Alright. Why don’t we start with the staff report here and see where we go. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This item before you tonight again is to consider awarding contract for the East water treatment plant. As you know this process has taken I don’t know, maybe 5 years to get through. There were numerous studies that have been completed. There was a citizen advisory committee that was formed to help the city guide, help guide the process as well. So again we’re, the treatment plant is proposed to be built on a city owned property just north of Highway 5 by the pedestrian bridge here and utilities extended to the facility from the existing wells and future wells that are planned under this plan as well. The th water treatment plant bids were opened on June 30 at 11:00 and were read out loud. The bids however did come in higher than anticipated but the bids that we did receive we believe that reflect what the market is for this treatment plant. Three qualified bids were, had submitted bids and from the lowest to the highest bid a separation of only approximately $4,000.00 separated the bids out of a $10.6 million dollar project. This represents less than a 1% change in the bid cost from again the lowest to the highest bid. For this reason staff feels that the bids that we received we would not receive any better bids if we bid out the project at a later date. And also the prices of the raw material and fuel labor costs are always increasing so it’d be unlikely that we’d receive any better bids than we would 6 months from now or so. We have looked at other funding sources to try to offset the water, or the water utility fund for, and the bonding for this project and that was in your packet and we did discuss a little bit of that back at the work session earlier this evening. I’d like to have Jim Norton come up at this time. Maybe give a brief explanation of the bids and the difference between the actual bids and the engineer’s estimate. Jim Norton: Thanks Paul. Mr. Mayor and council and staff. Just want to continue on from where Paul was talking about the award of contract for the east water treatment plant and what th I’ll do to continue on it just to paraphrase the letter that I prepared dated July 26 that was part of the packet. As Paul mentioned four bids were received and opened. One bid was withdrawn the same day. They had indicated an error in their bids so they withdrew it. Of the three remaining bids, were responsive bids for the construction of the east water treatment plant. Of the three bids Madsen-Johnson Corporation has the low total bid of $10,927,000.00. And this was made up of Schedule A, the treatment plant which was a lump sum bid of $9,452,655.70 and Schedule B, the unit price bids for related facilities, yard, piping, valves and such, grading. Everything 82 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 outside of the plant of $1,474,344.30. That total bid amount then was $10,927,000.00. The two bid alternates from Madsen-Johnson included on the revised bid form were for Alternate No. 1, the extension of the completion dates was a deduct of $208,000.00. And the Alternate No. 2, the use of different retaining wall block was also a reduction of $34,153.00 for a total deduct of $242,153.00. Had meetings with city staff. There was discussion about the two bid alternates and an agreement upon resulting deduct of $242,153.00 from the total bid and then the resulting total of $10,684,847.00. All three bidders submitted prices on Schedules A and B and both alternates. The other two bids were from Knutson Construction Services and Graham Penn and those total bid amounts for Knutson, $10,940,288.95 and $10,991,323.00 for Graham Penn, as Paul mentioned, those bids are quite close for that size of a project. Alternate No. 1 for Knutson, which was extension of the completion date was a credit of $180,000 and for Graham Penn that Alternate 1 was a credit of $303,107.00. For Alternate No. 2, the retaining wall block was an additional amount of $42,816.00 for Knutson and $34,986.00 for Graham Penn. The numbers then were $10,803,104.95 for Knutson and $10,723,202.00 for Graham Penn and the compared to the Madsen-Johnson bid of $10,684,847.00. The engineer’s final estimate presented to you at th the April 25 council meeting was $10,030,000 for the base bid of Schedules A and B and then $286,000.00 for alternates numbers 1 and 2. The extended completion dates and the retaining wall block. This resulted in a final estimated construction cost of $9,744,000 for the engineer’s estimate. And the difference of $940,847 from the engineer’s estimate to the low total net bid for Madsen-Johnson represented a difference of about 9.7%. And while this is significant, it’s still within the recognized industry standard of 10% and as such then no consideration for the rejection of bids and rebidding was considered. I wanted to just talk to the difference between the engineer’s estimate and the low bid. In looking back over the bid tabulation, the big difference came in the unit price items. The unit price amounts, dollar amounts were significantly difference. I think the reasoning for that was the engineer’s estimate included prices on projects that were probably larger and more of a similar type of a project like a long watermain for example rather than individual pieces and railroad crossings and so the unit price items were significantly different and I think that represented the lion share of the difference between the engineer’s estimate and the low bid. Madsen-Johnson meets the general contractor bidder qualification requirements. And also their mechanical and electrical subcontractors, Holmes Brothers Plumbing and Heating and Electrical Installation and Maintenance, EIM meet their respective qualifications as well. We’ve done reference checks for Madsen-Johnson and for Holmes Brothers and so EIM and have found them to be very satisfactory and they have done projects and are doing projects currently with us and as such we know them directly and we know them as a result of contacts with their references. Therefore we would recommend that the construction of the east water treatment plant, City Project No. 04-08 be awarded to Madsen- Johnson Corporation in the amount of $10,684,847.00. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Any questions? I guess first question I’d ask Mr. Gerhardt for you in terms of the financial effect of awarding this bid relative to our rate study which we talked about at our work session this evening. And other opportunities available. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, council members. The staff to make up that gap, and how I calculated the gap is you know engineer’s estimate was $9,744,000. The bid amount is $10,684,847. That’s a difference of $940,847.00. So $940,000 is roughly the difference. Staff has come up with $150,000 in new revenue that would be derived through storm water enterprise 83 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 fund and sanitary sewer enterprise fund. Those are costs associated with our storm water that would go along with this project. It’s our practice to whenever we put in new curb or storm water in the community, the city pays for that. So we’re still following that practice. Sanitary sewer, enterprise fund has some sanitary sewer costs here, so that’s a legitimate cost back to that fund. So that’s approximately $155,000. Staff has done some initial cost estimates and some deducts as a part of this project. In working with SEH we’ve probably come up with another $150,000. So if you add those two together you get about $300,000 so you’re net difference is about $640,000. At this point staff would continue to work with whoever may receive the bid. Staff is recommending that it be Madsen-Johnson, in seeing what other cost saving measures that we can accomplish bringing back to the City Council those deducts as a change order to the project. Councilman Lundquist: Todd, that 155 you just talked about, the enterprise fund, that’s not a new source of revenue. That’s just using a different bucket of money to pay for it. Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: But it still is going to cost us a million bucks more than we thought it was going to cost us. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Just taking it out of the left hand pocket and putting it in the right hand pocket. Todd Gerhardt: Well if you’re looking back, we were talking about the utility rate change, so you know the extra million dollars in building a water treatment plant gives reflection back to why we have to make that utility rate change and trying to reduce that, if Bob were here bogey down and so that’s where we’re coming up. If we were to look at trying to make up a million dollar difference then I think we’re going to have to re-look at the whole design of the building and eliminate the generator and things like that. Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff still. Okay, thank you. Discussions. Comments. Thoughts. Councilman Peterson: I think it’s logical that we move ahead. I think it’s important for the viewing public at 12:07 to realize we did spend a great deal of time at the work session walking through the reference checks of the contractor and contractores and substantial discussion and I think it was valuable. It’s a big project for the city and we should be diligent. I think we have been and I think we should move ahead. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No comment. Councilman Labatt: I would concur with Mr. Peterson. 84 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Would also as we talked at work session, let’s look at a background at Dunn & Bradstreet and some of those as well before we proceed. And then as we talked in the work session, that given where we’re at on costs, I think we need to work with staff and also staff with SEH and Madsen-Johnson to look for some opportunities in scope reduction, cost savings. Either there’s going to be some unknowns with a project this size. They’re just not going to walk through it and have every detail nailed so we’re going to have some more bogeys to make up yet because we can’t foresee everything, so let’s start soon and get that list made so we’ve got some money left in the kitty as well. And then in favor of proceeding and as Mr. Ayotte sitting at home watching for this to happen. Mayor Furlong: He’s been waiting, as have many of our residents and yet there’s not been dawdling or dragging of feet throughout this process. It is a major commitment that we’re proposing to undertake here this evening. I think it’s one that is the right one to take and I think it is reasonable and appropriate to move forward at this time. There’s work to be done in terms of working with the contractor to find reduced ways to reduce his cost. I think it’s incumbent upon and I will challenge staff and our financial advisors to not just assume that the difference will be made up with rates. Let’s look at our assumptions throughout that rate study plan and evaluate dollars needed versus perhaps included for other maintenance and other items throughout the enterprise fund. Including cash requirements. I am certainly not proposing financially and prudent measures to be taken at all, and delaying expenditures doesn’t necessarily eliminate them but let’s be diligent in finding ways on how we can move forward. The cost I think, what it costs to do what we want to do and it’s something that as a council we made the decision we are going to start treating our water in this city so I’m in full favor of moving…we still have some work to do in terms of funding and to Councilman Lundquist’s point, there will be change orders that will be generated as these projects always do and we’re going to have to find a way to absorb those as well. But I think this is time to move forward here and to accept these bids. I believe I would be in full favor of that this evening. So other comments. Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I would move that City Council approve a construction contract with Madsen-Johnson Corporation in the amount of $10,684,847.00. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Do you want to add there your condition about a satisfactory background investigation by Dunn & Bradstreet? Councilman Lundquist: That’s a good point. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you do that, to be conducted by our City Attorney? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. 85 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion has been made, amended and seconded. In reverse order. It’s late but let’s get it right so the motion’s been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Resolution#2005-66: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve a construction contract with Madsen-Johnson Corporation in the amount of $10,684,847.00 contingent upon the City Attorney conducting a satisfactory background investigation by Dunn & Bradstreet. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: I’d like to start off by thanking anybody that is still watching this live, if you are my son it’s time to go to bed. And if you are my wife it’s also time to go to bed so. Any council presentations? Discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I would just like to say publicly thank Sergeant Olson, Beth Hoiseth and Sheriff’s office and anyone else who helped out in the planning of the National Night Out. Had the opportunity to go out and visit a few of those parties and Beth and Jim do a bang up job putting that thing together and people really appreciate that. It’s a way to get everybody, all the neighbors and all that together so Todd, if you could pass along those thoughts or comments to Jim and Beth. Mayor Furlong: I would concur. Councilman Lundquist: And the posse. Mayor Furlong: And the posse. Councilman Lundquist: The fire department. Everyone else. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Did a great job. Well received. Other comments, or council presentations I should say. Thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: The only item I have is, if there is any public that is still awake, we have a 212 th ground breaking for August 20 from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Pioneer Ridge Freshman Center in Chaska. Lots of fun. Family activities. Music and food and speakers are Lieutenant Governor Molnau, Congressman Kennedy, Congressman Kline, Congressman Ramstad and State Senator Ortman will be speaking. Councilman Labatt: You might want to post that as a meeting. I’m sure a lot of us will go. 86 City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Good idea. Todd Gerhardt: And we do have one other item on the work session but we’ll plan that for another. Mayor Furlong: Just to follow up on the 212. I’ll include in the next administrative packet a meeting with the Southwest Corridor Transportation Commission and information there with regard to not only the schedule for Highway 212. I think it’s starting to get out there that it will be, the plan now is to complete the sections from where it currently terminates in Eden Prairie at County Road 4 through Powers Boulevard by the end of 2007. And there’s also, there will be grading beginning this fall in the city of Chanhassen along the 212 corridor as well so that will begin and we’ll start, so I’ll include that information in the next correspondence package. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? Hearing only zippers closing on cases, any discussion on the correspondence packet. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 87