Loading...
CC 2006 01 09 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman and Tom Knowles PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Kurt Papke Planning Commission Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody here joining us in the Council Chambers as well as those watching us at home. We’re glad that you joined us. I’d like to wish everybody a happy new year as well. Hope that their holidays went well. This is our first meeting of the calendar year and as such there are a few organizational items that are necessary for us to address so at this time, first I would ask if there are any modifications or changes to the agenda that was distributed with the council packet? If there aren’t, then without objection we’ll proceed with that agenda. ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: A. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. Mayor Furlong: The City will use this newspaper for communicating with our residents and other interested parties with regard to our activities. Staff has recommended the Chanhassen Villager be appointed as the official newspaper. I guess at this time I would ask if there’s any questions for staff on this item. At all. Or any discussion. If not, is there a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation? Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to appoint the Chanhassen Villager as the city’s official newspaper. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 B. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR. Mayor Furlong: This is a person, member of the City Council who will run council meetings, stand in at ceremonies and execute other official documents in the mayor’s absence. We’ll open up the floor for nominations for acting mayor. Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I would nominate Councilman Brian Lundquist. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Second. Any other nominations? Seeing none we’ll close nominations without objection. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to appoint Councilman Lundquist as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. C. APPOINTMENT OF FIRE CHIEF. Mayor Furlong: The fire department elected Greg Geske to another 2 year term as our fire chief in December of last year. Last month. Staff’s recommending that the council reaffirm Mr. Geske’s appointment as Fire Chief. Is there a motion to that effect? Councilman Lundquist: So moved. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on that? Very good, Mr. Geske did a great job and we look forward to 2 more years of his service to this city as chief. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to reaffirm Mr. Greg Geske’s appointment as Fire Chief. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. CONSENT AGENDA: Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’d like to remove Chapter 20, the discussion specifically on the setback. 20 feet from any gas pipeline easement. I’d like to understand the vote on that issue. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. That was 2(d) I believe, is that correct Ms. Lloyd? It was Chapter 20? Debbie Lloyd: Yes. 2 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay, that’s item 2(d). We’ll also bring that up after visitor presentations. Without objection. Any other items? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 12, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated December 12, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated December 6, 2005 b. Approval of Amendment to the 2006 Meeting Schedule. c. Amendment to Chapter 18 of City Code, Subdivision. e. Enterprise Rent-a-Car: Request for Conditional Use Permit to Rent Automobiles at 227 th West 79 Street (Located at Master Collision). f. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approval of Drainage and Utility Easement Acquisition for Storm Pond Improvements. g. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County/MnDot for TH 101 Corridor Study South of Lyman Boulevard. h. Accept $1,000 Donation to the Chanhassen Recreation Center from TCF Bank. Resolution#2006-01: i. 2006 Street Improvement Project: Accept Feasibility Study and Call for Public Hearing for Koehnen Area Street Reconstruction Project 06-01. th Resolution #2006-02: k. Arboretum Business Park 6 Addition, Project 03-08: Accept Public Utilities. l. TH 101 GAP Project 04-06: Approval of Land Purchase Agreement with Lake Susan Apartments. Resolution #2006-03: n. Approve Amended Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll for the TH 312/212 Improvement Project Nos. 03-09-2, 04-05 & 04-06. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Deb Lloyd: Tonight you’ll be addressing Planning Case 05-36, the Bluff Creek Twin Homes. The PUD-R. I just wanted to point out one thing. 3 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Can I ask you, are you going to, maybe we can bring it up when that item comes up on the agenda if you’d prefer. Deb Lloyd: Certainly. Yes, I’d be prepared then. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there anyone else who’d like to address the council on visitor presentations. If not, this evening with our just passed consent agenda one of the items was the acceptance of a donation offered by TCF Bank of $1,000 for our Chanhassen Recreation Center. That motion prevailed with our passing of the consent agenda and this evening Ms. Elizabeth Hoffman and Mr. Joe Miller are here with the TCF Bank so I would invite them forward at this time. Joe Miller: Hi, good evening City Council members. My name is Joe Miller. I’m a representative of TCF National Bank. We’re excited to add our second convenient location in Chanhassen, just up the road on 7900 Market Boulevard. As part of our tradition we do like to make a donation with each new branch we open and on behalf of TCF we want to make $1,000 donation to the Chanhassen Rec Center. This is also Jan Hellbrick who is an assistance manager at that location over there. Mayor Furlong: Well we thank TCF Bank for their donation to our rec center. We’re proud of our rec center and I know that money is going to be well used to expand some of their offerings out there so again, thank you very much for that. At this point we’ll pick up a couple of the items that were pulled off our consent agenda. We’ll start in order that they were listed on the agenda. D. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF CITY CODE, ZONING. Mayor Furlong: So we’ll pick up item 1(d) which is relating to the Chapter 20. Is Ms. Lloyd still here? Okay, if you’d like to come back forward and state your questions. This is on Chapter 20. You had a question on the setback requirement or clarification. Deb Lloyd: Do I need to reintroduce myself? Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. Deb Lloyd: Okay. You know the internet is a marvelous tool today that allows you to research a lot of topics and it’s very, I think the setback from easements for pipelines and other hazardous materials is a very interesting topic. In the staff report it suggests that there’s a 50 foot setback that is suggested in Washington and I’m just curious, we’re going to a 20 foot setback. And we have some setbacks that are presently, was it 65 feet? Kate Aanenson: I’ll answer all these when you get done. Deb Lloyd: Yeah, you have the information in front of you, so I’d just like to know why we’re deviating so much. Granted there will be homes that would be non-conforming to a new standard or other structures that would be, but that’s such a significant deviation and there is 4 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 some risk, although perhaps the chances of a gas explosion are minimal. There is risk associated with that. So I’d just like to understand why we’re going from a 20 foot, or we’re going to a 20 foot from a recommended 50 and we have an array as high as 65 presently. That’s all. I’d just like to hear the council’s discussion on the item. Mayor Furlong: Well I guess I would ask Ms. Aanenson, maybe you could, I know this issue was brought up before the Planning Commission too so maybe you could address it. Kate Aanenson: The reason that it was precipitated at the Planning Commission is, we have the Williams Pipeline that runs through the City of Chanhassen. However the easement was secured is depending, you know the easement itself varies depending on how it was secured. Sometimes they were given 50 feet. Sometimes less. Right now there is no standard setback from a pipeline. In researching this item with the city attorney, it’s stated in State Code is a city can adopt their own standard for this, so in looking at modeling what other cities have, and what we currently have. If you look in the staff report it ranges from 12 to 46 feet and it’s kind of development driven so we want to have a uniform practice. The other thing to consider is the pipe itself may not always be centered in the easement so sometimes it’s punitive. It may be in excess of 70 feet, depending if the 55 foot easement so we really took a look at the depth. We considered that. The depth of the utility itself. Again this is for high transmission. When you look at the issue, part of the ordinance on page 2 of what we put together for the staff, it doesn’t say that it’s the transmission pipeline. If you look at the ordinance it clearly states it’s for the transmission so what we’re looking at this is really put in place for the Williams Pipeline. So based on what we currently have in place, which is a significant number of subdivisions that are in place and that ordinance, we felt like in looking at what’s coming in in the future and the zoning associated with that, we felt that 20 foot seemed like an adequate setback. And again we have nothing right now. It’s a 0 setback requirement so that’s where we’re moving to. To 20. Mayor Furlong: And I guess for clarification, it also speaks to the no buildings were located within the easement. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, but you could build right up to it and that’s what we’re trying to do is give even a little bit better buffer so, you have to outside the easement, which is true with any city easement. You just can’t go into it if it meets setback so this would go above and beyond that. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, any comments or thoughts on the question? Roger Knutson: Kate and I have discussed this extensively a month or so ago and it seems reasonable to me. That’s 40 feet of additional land that cannot be developed so you have to look at what safety requires and give people reasonable use of their property, and right now additional 40 feet of property will be able to be used for development. And we think that provides good protection based on what we know. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff on this issue or anything else with regard to Chapter 20? 5 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, what did we use as a tool beforehand? Kate Aanenson: We didn’t have one. It was really up to the developer depending on what they did. Some of them, based on the type of development were able to provide a little bit greater setback. But right now you, you were allowed to build up to the easement. Again, sometimes the easement was 65 feet so you had kind of a built in buffer if it was centered, but it’s not always the pipeline isn’t always centered in the easement. So really this is giving us an additional buffer, and that was our goal. We found in some circumstances when the pipeline’s not centered, that we had some concern about putting single family next to that. And the state law does allow us to do our own ordinance above and beyond that and that’s the research we found out working with the city attorney. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any discussion on this matter? My sense is, having heard this and the information in the report, that staff gave it thoughtful consideration. Came up with a compromise and for that reason I think I was comfortable originally going in so once, still am. Is there any other discussion on this? If not, is there a motion to adopt item 2(d). Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? I’m sorry, that’s item 1(d) off the consent agenda. Not 2(d). Councilman Lundquist: 2(d). Mayor Furlong: It is 2(d)? I was right. I thought I was wrong but I was right. We have a motion in front of us that’s been made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve amendment to Chapter 20 of City Code, Zoning. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. O. KENTON & JULIA KELLY, 6539 GREY FOX CURVE: APPROVAL OF A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DOCK. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, walk me through as we’ve gone through a couple of these, this one’s been going on for a long time but recently how this one differs from the other ones that other applicants have been in with these docks through the wetlands on Lotus Lake. Kate Aanenson: Well this one is unique in the fact that they’re acquired an outlot to assemble with their property to secure dock rights. They’re all unique, every time you do one. You know 6 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 typically the one we most recently looked at prior to this didn’t have riparian rights. While this is an outlot, it clearly has riparian rights. It’s the fact that it was kind of what precipitated this is the staff’s belief that that outlot was, the…provide just open space and not be used as a structure. The one we most recently looked at, the City Council, that one, you couldn’t get to the depth to make that work so it didn’t meet all the standards of a dock, while this one is on an outlot. It can meet the dock standards just as the impact to mitigate that for the, because it’s going through the wetland. It can meet the depth on all that. And I think at the end of the day the goal with the wetland alteration permit, what we’re trying to prevent is them selling off additional property and allowing somebody else to get a dock, and through the wetland alteration permit, which is our goal is not to have additional docks. So that’s really, through a few years of negotiations, that’s the ultimate goal is not to have additional docks on that outlot and that’s what the wetland alteration permit will give us. Councilman Lundquist: Roger, that’s within our power and jurisdiction to prevent structures or further subdivision or put that as a condition on that wetland alteration permit? Roger Knutson: Mayor and council members, yes it is because if we didn’t, without that condition they could sell off that outlot and someone could use it for a stand alone dock. That’d be in violation of our zoning ordinance. Docks are allowed as an accessory to a principle dwelling. You can’t just by a lot and just put a dock on, unless you qualify as a recreational beachlot, which is a whole different animal. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Okay, that’s all I had. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions on this item? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve a Wetland Alteration Permit to construct a dock at 6539 Grey Fox Curve for Kenton and Julia Kelly. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. STONEFIELD, 1601 LYMAN BOULEVARD, PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC: A. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EAEMENTS. B. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF. C. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION INTO 30 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES. 7 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Public Present: Name Address Mark Edman 1572 Bluebill Trail Brent Hislop 1851 Lake Drive West #550 Curtis Neft Westwood Professional Services Matt Amack 8633 Alisa Court Craig J. Renir 8668 Flamingo Drive Matt Goldstein Lundgren Bros. Construction Steve Buan 8740 Flamingo Drive Mayor Furlong: There are a number of items here, the first one of which and while it’s listed under public hearing is related to vacation of existing drainage and utility easements. There’s also a request for rezoning of the property and request for preliminary subdivision so staff report please and make sure at some point that we get into the public hearing. We don’t want to. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Remind me when I get, but I’m going to wrap them all together. Kind of go back to the vacation. Kind of site where the property is. The subdivision and then back, circle back around to why we need to do the vacations. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So if I forget you can help remind me to open up the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Subject site, the Goers property is located off of Lyman. The current driveway comes that way but this subdivision actually will come off of Osprey Lane. It’s the only way to access this property. Wooded area on the south. So this is the existing. There is a 50 foot right- of-way existing on that. That’s the variance that you see before you tonight, is we think that transition from the 50 to the 60. This item was heard before the Planning Commission on th December 6 to review the development. They approved, voted 6-0 to approve the subdivision itself. I’ll go through the subdivision. The critical issues there and then like I said, I’ll circle back and talk about the project itself. Again they’re splitting part of the Goers’ property, the property to the south of this. This is heavily wooded. There was a question brought up earlier at the Planning Commission meeting as preservation of trees. This is not in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Bluff Creek Overlay District is further south of this so this is treated. The wooded area as we do with any other project for the tree preservation and there’s a requirement to actually replace a significant amount of trees. Part of this property is currently farmed so. Another question that arose, there are changes that you approved tonight regarding the subdivision and zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance, there wouldn’t be a change that would, there is a setback requirement from a pipeline that they would have to meet. That’s in the zoning ordinance. They have accommodated that. There’s other changes on the plat that they would have standing on that because by the time that’s get published this plat would be through 8 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 so they would have to make those changes on the subdivision itself. There is some extensive grading on the site, and then also the city is working. There’s a drainage issue on the project itself too and I’ll go through that for a minute. Again as I mentioned it was farmed. Heavily wooded. You’re looking at some neighboring property. Looking at how this piece ties together. Part of what the staff looks at, I just want to kind of back out a little bit. One of the projects, this may be a little hard to see but part of what we look at is making sure all the pieces work together so actually engineering looked at how this property ties together. There was a question on the Bongaard property, which is on this side, how that would be served. There’s a barn over here. Continuation of this temporary cul-de-sac. How that would serve. There is a barn there. Until such time that that property is subdivide, that would stay the way it is. The house could stay. It’d be a similar subdivision more than likely. The barn would probably go away so that was one of the things we looked at. It does meet all the lot width requirements. Again this kind of a new model that we’ll be looking at. You saw the zone changes tonight. Included in your packet are the home plans itself. That’s the direction we’re moving in looking at some of these issues regarding configuration of home size on the lot. So the builder has, developer has supplied home plans. Specifically some of the smallest lots to show that they can meet the standard requirements because we do have a 90 foot frontage. Some of the developers now are moving up to actually 74 feet lot size so if you have 10 foot on either side, it’d be difficult to make that, so they’ve demonstrated they can meet all the requirements for their home placement plan. So the one issue we really struggled with was the retaining wall in and of itself. You can see along this red line, it might be a little hard to see but there’s a retaining wall that goes up to 11 feet and back down. It’s the only way that really this property can be subdivided. Some of the pieces that are left in the city as you know are the more challenging ones with some rolling topography that adds a lot of interest but also require some retaining walls. This retaining wall, the eastern side was actually reduced quite a bit so we worked with the developer to revise and reduce a lot of the retaining walls and their locations on the subject site itself. One of the other issues, there’s a drainage problem ongoing for this property. There’s a large drainage area that this will encompass. You can keep zooming. We’re in this area. Here’s Osprey through here. This is that larger drainage area that we’ll be picking up, so the city had initiated through storm water management to do a ponding project, so we’re partnering, because this pond serving this development will actually pick up a greater area than the subdivision itself. So the developer will be compensating the city for his portion of the drainage but we’re also oversizing the pond and then when the other developments come in they’ll pay for that oversizing, so that pond will be built to accommodate the rest of the development, and it’s also picking up some of the drainage that’s coming currently off of Osprey Lane. There will be no park and trail dedication. There will be fees taken at this time. Again the one issue with the street, there’s existing 50 foot streets so we’re making a transition between the Shenandoah plat and that vacation review. The new subdivision will accommodate the temporary pond will go away because we’re creating a new pond. Again the vacation of existing right-of-way, we’re making a transition between one end of 50 and 60, blending that and there’s an existing utility. Again those are no longer needed and they’ll be incorporated in the new plat so we need to vacate that and that’s the portion you’ll be holding the public hearing on. With that, the developer has responded to the staff in writing. We’re working just trying to resolve some of the issues in good faith. With that, made significant changes from when it came in. Looking at the gas line. Accommodating that. Trying to get the setback. That is accommodated the new 20 foot so working through all those issues, reducing the grading. Tree preservation and reduction of retaining walls so we have, they 9 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 have sent us a letter as of last week and so noted, we’re moving in the direction. We’d like to keep the conditions in there as tracking so when they come back for final plat those don’t fall through the cracks, so with that we are recommending approval and then I guess at this point I’d ask you to open the public hearing regarding the vacation of the easements. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why don’t we go ahead and open the public hearing regarding the vacation of the easements based upon the staff report, and then we may get back to other issues regarding the rezoning request and subdivision of preliminary plat. So at this time, without objection I will open the public hearing with regarding to the issue so say with the vacation of the existing easements across the property as outlined in item 4(a) in our agenda. Anybody, any interested party please come forward to the podium and state your name and address. Mark Edman: Good evening members of the council. My name is Mark Edman. My address is 1572 Bluebill Trail. I actually back up to the pond or the drainage area you’re talking about, and I guess I just want a little bit more clarification as to actually what is happening to that area and a little more I guess clarification as to is it getting larger? Is it getting smaller? Is it moving? Just kind of a little bit more from that standpoint. Also just as a note, the meeting that happened on th the 6, I got some kind of notice that said that meeting had been cancelled so I just, from that standpoint I don’t know what happened but there was some confusion there as to whether or not that meeting was going on. So not that it really would have made that much difference but I wish I would have known because I didn’t know that meeting was actually happening. So anyway, but if you could clarify the drainage for me. Kate Aanenson: Sure. I believe Lori has spoken to you too? Mark Edman: No. Not me. Kate Aanenson: Okay. I think to one or two of the neighbors. I’ll let Paul interject too if he has some additional comments or even Todd Hoffman regarding the parks. There is a trail that exists that’s going through that. Part of this is park property, so again as I indicated the City’s working with an engineering firm to design ponding to accommodate runoff that’s oversized, kind of an oversized pipe running through and causing erosion on Mr. Goers property so this will accommodate that, plus the Bongaard property so we’re servicing a larger area which is the city’s goal. So it’s a 3 cell pond. There will be some vegetation that needs to be removed but this is the location. I know that was a concern of some of the neighbors that some of the trees will have to be removed. And it’s Todd’s goal also to try to, I believe try to tie up a trail through that to get access to the park in and of itself. But so there will be a deeper, bigger pond to accommodate that. Mark Edman: More space? Is it going to be larger or is it just going to be deeper? Kate Aanenson: Mostly deeper. You want to come up here and point to it Todd. Mark Edman: That’s the new one. 10 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Todd Hoffman: This pond will be enlarged here to the west. To this bow right here. The trees that are currently out there on the hole or in the berm right now are primarily going to go. Kate Aanenson: They have to go, yep. Todd Hoffman: They should not be there in the first place on that embankment, and then we’re having a third trail connection put in off of the new road at this location. We have our trail connection to the park off of Bluebill. We currently have a connection off of Mallard Court. In the future we’ll be working with the residents to connect all three of those with an asphalt trail to the base of the sliding hill to provide some more convenient access throughout the park system. Mark Edman: Okay, so the trees you’re talking about, only the ones that are right along there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Those will probably be removed with that. And part of that issue is too, is we need to get in to maintain that so. That pond. And one of the other issues that was brought up regarding vegetation was the sliding hill. Slowing people down as they move towards the backs of those lots. Looking at some of those issues too. Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Mark Edman: I guess. Mayor Furlong: This is a public hearing. Interested parties, please come forward if you’d like to the podium. State your name and address please. Craig Renir: Hello, I’m Craig Renir. I live on Flamingo Drive. I actually live straight down on the other side of the pond. Right in here. I’m wondering, why do the berm and the trees need to be removed? What are the advantages of that? Because I’d like to keep the berm there as a visual barrier until they redevelop and… And also it brings in those squirrels and birds and things into the area. And why would it have to be removed I guess. What are the advantages for removing a berm and trees? Mayor Furlong: Okay. It’s a fair question. Would staff like to? Kate Aanenson: If we could save it and make the functionality work, we would but really to get the desired, you have to meet certain standards as far as slope and depth and to get it on that site, it’s the only way it can be done. Craig Renir: I was wondering, I don’t know if they can zoom on this. I guess we have the same out here. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Craig Renir: And here they actually, well you were saying they were moving this pond… Kate Aanenson: It’s a temporary. That’s correct. The temporary will go, right. 11 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Craig Renir: And they’ll be building a new pond. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Right now what’s being done there right now is inadequate. We have horrible erosion problems through that property. It’s inadequate. So again, we’re serving a much larger. Part of this is picking up Lake Susan Hills. Part will pick up Bongaard’s as it’s eroding now and then this development itself, so again it’s serving a regional area. That’s why it needs to be so big. Craig Renir: How about you say you’re moving a pond here at the end, a temporary pond as well as a new one. Kate Aanenson: That temporary pond is inadequate in size and capacity. Craig Renir: Well I understand but where is the new pond going to be? This pond is already here. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s going to be reshaped. Craig Renir: Okay… Kate Aanenson: Correct, and then there’ll be two other ones that go there, yeah. Todd Hoffman: And one will go down here. Craig Renir: This pond is here. Todd Hoffman: That’s here. That’s here. This is the new one that’s going to be built. These two will be reshaped and enlarged. Craig Renir: Do you have a topographical map or an aerial? Kate Aanenson: That’s what this is. Craig Renir: Yeah the aerial map, this is the flood zone already. All this area. And why wouldn’t you not build the new pond to an area that’s already lower and a flood zone now? See actually there’s a break…pond here reaches this corner and this is all low land. Every spring this all floods the way it is and then carries down the creek… Kate Aanenson: We’ll take a look at it. Craig Renir: I’m just wondering if you put the wall here, a berm and put an additional pond here. Kate Aanenson: …it’s very complex as far as… Right, that’s what we’re trying to solve. There’s an existing pond there. We’ll look at it. 12 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Craig Renir: But a lot of, I don’t know, the berm is something I think we can talk to, I know you need a. I also understood the pond’s over 6 feet deep. Is that true? Kate Aanenson: Right. Craig Renir: This pond, they’re saying to go deeper with it. I believe the pond here is 6 feet… Kate Aanenson: Well, it’s also the integrity of that pond isn’t functioning as it should be either so. Craig Renir: Well actually the house, we have 3 pipes coming into it now and one leading out. Todd Hoffman: The outlet structure’s failed on that, isn’t it? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Todd Hoffman: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: If you look at what’s going, I don’t want to get really technical but if you look at what’s going through right now, it’s about 100 cubic feet per second. We’re trying to reduce that down to like 99, so we’re reducing the volume so you need more capacity to make the pond as big as we can on that site so that’s the goal. And we’re working with the consultant. I believe Lori has walked it, physically looked at the best we can. We certainly can revisit that and. Mayor Furlong: In terms of the design and. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor if I could step in here. I think we should probably look at the overall development itself and as it relates to the ponding, I think we should sit down with the neighborhood and talk about some alternatives and discuss the overall construction of these. I think we had some informational meetings and unless they’ve messed up on our notice or something there and sit down with the neighborhood so they feel comfortable what’s going on there. But if, I think we can do that in the next couple of weeks and get the feedback and bring the pond section back to the council. But there definitely needs to be some more communication done here. Craig Renir: Well one thing I noticed that, and I don’t know if you walked it or not but, where the outlet is for the pond, there’s actually one of the sheet of rock, the paper they use for settling the retention in construction over the outlet. Which greatly reduces flow so we do have a high flow of water coming into it. It just goes over the berm without the pipe. I guess those are all that point or issues with this pond… 13 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Kate Aanenson: It takes too much water too quickly. It doesn’t hold it back. That’s part of the goal of the storm water management is to hold it on site so it doesn’t have the velocity of causing that erosion as it goes to the site. Todd Gerhardt: You’re not seeing the erosion around the pond. The erosion is occurring farther down where the tree section is. Is where you’re seeing the erosion occur. And the reason that the erosion is occurring down there is that, as Kate has mentioned, it’s taking so much water out of there. There needs to be a new outlet installed. Craig Renir: Okay. Well another thing, issue here too is this drain tile running down this property line. Which has been washed out. Todd Gerhardt: Yes, and I was out on the site. I saw it. The pipe separated and you’ve got erosion going there. That’s another problem but if that pipe was still connected, the outlet of the pipe further down into the woods, if you go to the southerly of the Goers property, you had extensive erosion problem down there that we spent several weeks of trucking debris out of there. Kate Aanenson: We cleaned up the site once this summer. Craig Renir: I was just wondering if another, over the berm we put another retention pond there and then had it to a level where the excess would be piped out across the whole area even the bottom of the park, …gully there even. Instead of just making a larger pipe through there. Todd Gerhardt: Could be an option. Like I said, I think we need to sit down with you to kind of explain how they came up with this design and then, you know if you’ve got some other suggestions I think we’ll listen to you and see if they can incorporate them. And definitely if we’re going to lose trees in this area, I’ve walked the area, maybe we can go back in and re- landscape some of those areas that we’re losing some trees. Craig Renir: I mean I realize the trees right now are small. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, they’re ash or. Craig Renir: Well they grow in the flood zone, that’s why. Todd Gerhardt: Yep, they like water. Craig Renir: …is what’s going to happen to the bottom of the area that…farmed? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think we’re planning on going in there and revegetating that area. Closer to where the pipe blew out. Put some longer prairie grasses in that area. Craig Renir: I was just wondering if it was just going to become you know mowed parkland again. 14 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Todd Gerhardt: No. Todd Hoffman: Majority will be planted in long grass prairie. There will be just a small, little eyebrow that will be green grass at the bottom of the hill, and then beyond that, the majority of that will be long grass prairie. Craig Renir: Okay. Well I appreciate it, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: If we could get both of your name and number and we’ll sit down with you or any of your neighbors that are concerned and talk about the pond construction. Craig Renir: Okay, thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else that would like to comment during the public hearing with regard to the proposed vacation of the easements? I see a few people wiggling. Chris Amack: Good evening. I’m Chris Amack at 8633 Alisa Court and I’m actually pretty excited about it. I don’t know a whole lot but again I missed the meeting. I was going to go but I also got an announcement something was cancelled so I don’t know if it was my fault or what it was but, this backs right up into my property. My property’s right here. I guess my biggest concern would be the erosion. Absolutely right. It’s very severe. I’ve got a retaining wall and some landscaping that’s been done and it’s, that whole lower level I can’t even put grass in basically. It’s when it rains it’s, you’re basically not walking back there for you know a good week and a half. So as we look at putting a house down there, is there, are we going to elevate the land and if so, what happens to that water? Does it come back onto mine. Mayor Furlong: That’s a fair question. Kate Aanenson: It should positively flow back towards the street. Towards the catch basin there. I don’t have the elevation but we can check with him on that information. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: It’s sheet flowing to the catch basin in the street. I don’t have the sheet, do you want to look at that Paul? Paul Oehme: Sure. Mayor Furlong: So that will get graded? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s a catch basin out in the street so it’s sheet flowing towards. Mayor Furlong: With the grading that will, with the grading of those lots. 15 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Anyone else who would like to speak at the public hearing, please come forward. Okay, seeing nobody. Is there a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Furlong: Let’s move on now. With regard to, there obviously are some issues that were raised here this evening by the residents that we need to address. Mr. Gerhardt, I agree with your idea. Is that, I didn’t hear necessarily objections to the vacation. It was where’s the water going to go? Obviously we need to come up with a good design there based upon a variety of factors. So does that preclude us given that, again maybe this is a question for Mr. Knutson. The motion on the vacation was conditioned upon the final plat of this development so if we act tonight on that vacation, if that’s a desire, do we need to wait for the pond to be redesigned I guess is my question, if there is any more design needed. Or bring just that issue back? I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: I believe the pond. Mayor Furlong: It is conditioned upon approval of the final plat so nothing’s going to happen until these are all in place. Kate Aanenson: …if I can just jump in but I guess what we would recommend, if it’s okay with the council, before it comes back for final plat that we have the neighborhood meeting and we would commit to do that. …make it a condition… Mayor Furlong: I think we can do that sooner rather than later. Yeah, there were some good issues raised and I think we need to get that information discussed and, as well. So okay. Roger Knutson: But as far as adopting a resolution of the vacation as presented, I don’t see any issues in delaying that unless staff does. Mayor Furlong: Because of the condition that it’s contingent upon final plat. Roger Knutson: Right. Final plat. No final plat. No vacation. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: And if we need a different easement, we can address that on the final plat. Mayor Furlong: Between preliminary and final. If that’s where it goes. Now there may be other reasons that we want to pull. Kate Aanenson: Just for the edification of those people that are concerned, it is condition 29 that was added and that talked about the regional pond. Again we’re doing a regional pond. We’re 16 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 designing it because it’s going to serve more than this. As I indicated before the developer is responsible for their portion that they’re contributing to it and then as the rest of the development goes in, but then we can just add something on that number 29. That neighborhood meeting be held prior to final plat regarding the pond. If that makes sense. Mayor Furlong: And perhaps you raise, besides a neighborhood meeting, there may be additional activities that take place prior to that design as well. So the conditions provide protection as well of this design. Okay. Let’s bring it back then. Is there additional, Ms. Aanenson is there anything additional that you want to present with regard to the overall project? The rezoning or the. Kate Aanenson: Not at this time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Are there any questions for staff at this time with regard to this project? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have some. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is for Kate. If you go back to the map and the temporary cul- de-sac. Temporary means obviously it will be used someday for another development, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And with that development, would that entrance, would they use the same entrance that this development is using? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we actually…it is a condition on there. That that cul-de-sac be extended I the future. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ve been here once too many times. Kate Aanenson: …but this would tie back across, tie back across so we would put that in over to serve the Bongaard property if and when that developed, but we have to provide them adequate access. If you look at the topography of this property, this area, this is north here. If you can zoom in on this. It’s a little hard to read but it’s very challenging topography. This area down here really it’s in the Bluff Creek Overlay. The southern part of the Goers property. You’ve got the ravine that we talked about with the erosion as it goes through there. So really you can’t subdivide this bottom part soil types so you really have to take the development and bring it back over, tie it back in Audubon. So as part of what we do as planners, we have to provide access. We can’t landlock somebody so we always sit down and work through those issues, so we’ve looked at a way to provide access to the property to the west. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. 17 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: And I guess that access point, one is the southern point of this new road that’s being developed and the other is. Kate Aanenson: Alisa Lane. Mayor Furlong: What’s the name of that road? Kate Aanenson: Alisa. Alisa Lane… Mayor Furlong: …so you’d have to loop around. Any other questions? Any questions from others? Ms. Aanenson, on the southern portion of this property, down closer to Lyman, is anything being done at this time? Kate Aanenson: No. Actually it’s, the Goers will keep that house there. It does have access via Lyman. Because of the topography and the grades, it’d be difficult to further subdivide that. Again as a part of that it’s adjacent. The parcel next to it is right in the Bluff Creek Overlay District so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Nothing at this time. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Is there any issues that you’d like to address to the council as well? Brent Hislop: Good evening. My name is Brent Hislop with Plowshares Development. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Brent Hislop: I think Kate’s explained the key items. As you have discussion I’d be glad to answer specific questions or one of our engineers will. No comments at this time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. I’ll bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion on this? On any or all of these 3 items. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, just to comment on the pond. Seems to be the concern so need to get that. As far as Kate, when you’re talking about a condition of approval, I don’t know that, because this is a regional pond and the developer will do their piece and we’ll do our piece. I guess if we added as a condition that will inspire the developer to keep pushing us but I’m not sure that’s necessarily the right spot. Not really the developer’s issue. I mean it’s really a city issue, not a developer issue so I’m not sure that I would favor adding that as a condition but somehow I guess, since we’re on the record that just make sure that that gets done and obviously the developer will participate in that discussion but not really in favor of adding that as a condition of approval of the plat and burden them with that. Mayor Furlong: Help me understand with regard to creating a pond down there? Councilman Lundquist: Well it’s a regional pond so it’s not, I mean it’s more than Stonefield development so, adding that condition that the developer puts that neighborhood meetings 18 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 together and runs that and does all that is really more of a city, because it’s a regional pond, that’s more of a Paul and Kate thing and Lori than a Plowshares. Mayor Furlong: But the issue of creating ponding for stormwater management for this development is there, as well as creating a regional pond. Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Mayor Furlong: It gives the opportunity to do that. But in terms of the process of talking to the neighbors, making sure issues are addressed on the regional component of it. Councilman Lundquist: Yep, that’s a city responsibility. Mayor Furlong: And the city can facilitate that and get that done. As well as. Kate Aanenson: Yeah but it’s all the regional problem. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: So far, yeah. So in that sense we said, you have to provide ponding. We were ahead of this. We recognized when we had our super event that we had, as it’s already been discussed tonight, a blow out in some drain tile and some severe erosion down there, so we were already being proactive and doing some design work up there, so we’re making it bigger, so you’re right. It’s not all their burden. We’re putting a majority of that over sizing on our property but we have design constraints. We certainly want to educate the residents…design and see if there’s minor modifications as the City Manager’s indicated and if there’s landscaping that we can do to enhance that. Mitigate that, we certainly want to get that input. Whether you put it in here a condition or not, we’ve committed to do that so. Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, council members. The role that the developer would play on this is where exactly those future drainage and utility easements are going to go. They’re kind of the front person in establishing those and we’ve got to make sure where we need them. Where they work. Don’t impact their development so they’re a party to this and so they’re kind of the one that we have to vacate the old easements and establish the new ones. Probably on a portion of your property, or Plowshares development, and some on our’s so, that’s the role that I see Plowshares playing in this. And that we would coordinate with the neighborhoods. Bring them into City Hall and explain how the construction of the ponds would be done. What would happen to the berm. What the landscaping plan would look like, probably after the ponds are constructed. That’s how I view the next 2 weeks to occur. Mayor Furlong: I think, and since we’re talking about the pond, Councilman Lundquist brought it up. Condition 29 talks about an alternative if the pond is not built. Clearly it’s the objective here to build a regional pond, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, that’s our goal to solve a problem. Right. 19 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: Again our policy has been to go where we have those opportunities to get the best use of our dollars and this is an opportunity. A majority of our property of a developer that’s coming forward can expand the project and solve the problem. A bigger problem. Regional policy. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: My point, I think we’re going, it’s the right thing to do. We need to get it done. My point was that I want city staff to drive that process and lead that process with obviously the developer participating a significant amount, but not that they take a lead on that. That we take a lead on that. Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. Okay. Any other thoughts or discussions on the proposed rezoning or subdivision? Councilman Lundquist, no? Councilman Lundquist: No. Mayor Furlong: Anything? Councilman Peterson: Nor do I. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. Councilman Labatt: Kate a couple questions on the location of that pipeline. I’m trying to look at this cross section on the grading. Kate Aanenson: Actually the pipeline comes, oops we’re not on. So again this is north. Osprey. This is the street. This is the pipeline coming through. Through here, so the one lot that would be most impacted, we actually had them show a house plan that would fit on that lot. So that would be the lot with the additional 20 foot setback. Councilman Labatt: And where is that lot on the big plan? Kate Aanenson: It’s Lot 4. Councilman Labatt: Right there, okay. So that house is just pushed to the north. Kate Aanenson: Actually the orientation would be this way so, it’s this lot. So they met that new standard. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And the depth of that pipeline. Kate Aanenson: This one. This is Lot 4, Block 1. Oh I’m sorry. It’s this lot. So this is the pipeline though right through here. 20 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Councilman Labatt: Okay. And what’s the current depth right now of that pipeline? Kate Aanenson: Is it 4 ½? Gas pipeline. Brent Hislop: Depth of the pipe? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Brent Hislop: About 3 to 4 feet. Kate Aanenson: About 3 to 4 feet, yep. It’s pretty shallow. Councilman Labatt: And after the grading’s done, the proposed grade…is put in there, it will actually be a little deeper. Curtis Neft: The maximum allowed is 8 feet deep. And that’s where we’re at… Kate Aanenson: So that’d be the highest point of the hill at the top. Councilman Labatt: So between the road and the pipeline, it will be 8 feet? Curtis Neft: Correct. Kate Aanenson: And there’s less grading as you get towards the end. Councilman Labatt: Okay, that’s all I had. Just wanted. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Well I think my comments overall, I think it’s a good project and it’s one again where I think the city staff and the developer have worked well together to come up, to address some problems that exist. Try to make improvements. Use this as an opportunity. Also plan for the development of the properties around it in terms of being able to extend this street and loop it back around. And also deal with a number of issues surrounding our park and the other neighborhoods, so overall I think it’s a good project and congratulate everybody that works on it. Clearly there’s some more information to be shared and ideas to be discussed with regard to that pond and I’m glad that we’ll be taking care of that over the next few weeks as well to get that done so. If there are any other comments or discussion points? If not, we have three items here. I don’t know that we need to separate those for any reason so if there’s a desire to keep them together in the form of a motion, we can certainly, I would certainly entertain that at this time. If somebody would like to make a motion. I think they’re in order. Councilman Lundquist: There’s two. The third one. Mayor Furlong: The third one is item (a) which is the vacation. 21 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Councilman Peterson: We can make the motion relevant to what is submitted in the staff report and that might be the most prudent way to go through it. I’d certainly offer that as a motion. Mayor Furlong: Okay. That’d be items 4(a) and (b) within the staff report, including all the conditions there. Councilman Lundquist: 1 through 29. Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Roger Knutson: (a), (b) and (c)? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: (a), (b) and (c). Okay. That motion is made and seconded. Is there any discussion or questions on the motion? Seeing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2006-04: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve a resolution vacating the existing storm water ponding easement, street, drainage and utility easement and drainage and utility easement as defined on the attached vacation description and contingent upon City Council approval of the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve Planning Case #05-37 for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on plans stamped “Received November 18, 2005”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a right-of-way width variance, as shown on the plans stamped ‘Received November 18, 2005’, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed enlargement of the existing stormwater pond must be designed to meet the City’s minimum standards and coordinated and approved by the City Water Resources Coordinator. 2. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Storm sewer sizing calculations and a full-size drainage map must be submitted with the final plat for staff review and approval. 3. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood 22 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 level. 4. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. 5. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 6. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Watershed District, MN Department of Health, Carver County and the Williams Pipe Line Company. 7. The developer must obtain written permission from the Williams Pipe Line Company to perform the proposed grading within the easement. The developer is responsible for complying with all conditions of the Williams Pipe Line Company and assumes full responsibility for work performed within this easement. 8. On the utility plan: a. Show all the proposed storm sewer pipe type, size and class. b. Show the sanitary sewer pipe slope and class. c. Show watermain pipe class (C900). d. Add a storm sewer schedule. e. Show the existing storm sewer between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 within the center of the 20- foot utility easement. f. Show the stormwater manholes rim and invert elevations. g. Add a note to remove the temporary pond outlet control structure. h. The last street-accessible storm manhole discharging to the stormwater pond must be manhole with sump. i. Add a note: any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled. j. Extend the storm sewer farther to the south along the proposed street. k. Remove Lots 7 and 8 backyard storm sewer and add a storm sewer along the property line between Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 8 and 9 block 4. 9. On the grading plan: a. Show Type II silt fence adjacent to wetland, pond, creeks, etc. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Use class 5 storm sewer in the roadway; revise the note under general grading and drainage notes accordingly. d. Extend the swale between Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 farther to the east. 10. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, 23 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 11. The underlying property has not been assessed for sewer or water improvements. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees will be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 12. All disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 13. Any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 14. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 15. The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost and construction of the lift station and forcemain and any associated costs. 16. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in Formatted: Font: Not Bold the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 17. Add a “dead-end road” sign at the cul-de-sac. 18. On the plat, show all existing and proposed street names. 19. Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5204, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5217, 5221, 5232, 5234, 5240, 5241, 5300, 5301, 5302, 5302A and 5313. 20. Show the street lights and a stop sign on the plans. 21. Submit public utility plans and profile for staff review. 22. City Forester’s Conditions: a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. 24 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 10/14/05. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. 23. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Stonefield pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total $120,000 (30 lots x $4,000). Additionally, the applicant is required to construct the neighborhood asphalt trail connector to the property line as depicted on their preliminary plan submittals. 24. Water Resource Coordinator’s Conditions: a. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland D. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. b. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c. The applicant shall work with the City’s consultant to accommodate regional and site- specific storm water needs. d. The approximate location and extent of drain tile shall be shown on the plans. The applicant shall provide details as to whether the tile line will be removed, abandoned in place or remain. If the tile is to remain, the flow from the tile shall be accommodated in the design of the storm water management plan. e. The applicant shall provide rate control and storm water treatment to reduce off-site impacts. To provide a low-gradient means for controlling rate and volume, the applicant shall consider cooperating with the City to construct a wetland in the rear portions of any number of Lots 1-8, Block 3. In the event that the applicant is interested in pursuing wetland construction for banking purposes, this planning shall be integrated with the City’s consultant’s storm water infrastructure planning. f. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure and storm water ponds. g. The developer asserts that, due to the steep grade in the southern portion of the property, custom grading would not save any additional trees. In addition, the developer maintains that the slope of the road and the location of the retaining wall make custom grading lots impractical. If the developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of staff that custom grading 25 Formatted: Font: Not Bold City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 for their typical house pad would not result in additional significant tree preservation, mass grading of this area may be approved. h. The existing outlet structure of Pond A shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the City’s standard detail. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the pond. i. The portion of the silt fence that runs from the pipeline easement through Lot 7, Block 3 shall be moved upslope to the west by 30 to 60 feet to more clearly define the grading limits. The area of property between the silt fence and the gully and property line shall be seeded and mulched to control weeds and get a desirable cover crop in areas that were recently farmed. j. A temporary basin shall be constructed in the vicinity of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. The temporary sediment basin shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope area. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the basin shall be installed; details shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e. The basins must provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). k. Chanhassen Type 2 silt fence shall be provided for the perimeter of the site up to Lot 10, Block 3. From there, Type 1 may be used. Silt fence shall be shown on the plans around Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. l. Curbside inlet controls are needed; Wimco type or ESS type (or approved similar protection) inlet controls shall be used. Curbside inlet protection shall be provided for existing inlets adjacent to the site exit on Osprey Lane. City standard inlet protection details 5302 and 5302A shall be included in the plans. The proposed rear yard catch basin protection shall be revised; Wimco type, ESS type or equal must be used. The proposed silt fence shall be installed with additional rock around Chanhassen type 1 silt fence. m. The plans shall be revised to show energy dissipation for the flared end section on Lot 7, Block 3. n. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days 26 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. o. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. p. In order to fund the maintenance and expansion of the BC-P4.10 storm water pond and construction of additional capacity, the costs will be allocated among the benefiting properties. The total cost of materials and construction will be divided by the number of acres in the resulting subwatershed. The City will be responsible for the acres contributing from land already developed, park land and land to be developed in the future (e.g., the Bongaard parcel). The developer will be responsible for the acres contributing from their development. If, for any reason, the regional storm water facility is not constructed, the developer will be responsible for providing storm water quality and quantity management on the subject property and paying Surface Water Management connection charges in accordance with City Code. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $65,364. q. In conjunction with the BC-P4.10 storm water ponding project, land in addition to the land shown in Outlot A may be required. At this time, the estimated amount of land is approximately 0.5 acres. The developer and the City will seek to agree upon the terms of the use of land for ponding should additional land be required. The developer, if required, shall provide additional land for ponding. 25. Fire Marshall Conditions: Formatted: Font: Not Bold a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be either removed from site or chipped. b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure 27 Formatted: Font: Not Bold City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. e. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable. f. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 26. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 27. The retaining walls shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 28. The City shall not be responsible for maintenance of storm water infrastructure on Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 3.” 29. In the event that the regional pond project is not constructed, the applicant has proposed the installation of a second outlet structure on Pond A. In that event the existing outlet structure that is failing must also be replaced. The cost of a new outlet structure to replace the existing failing structure would be borne by the City, but the replacement would be done by the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. And thank you to the residents too that came out and spoke this evening. Drainage and utility easements are often non-issues so I’m glad that people came and spoke because I think we’ll end up with a better project afterwards so thank you very much. For your involvement and interest. 28 Formatted: Font: Not Bold City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 GALPIN CROSSING, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 & GALPIN BOULEVARD, RICH RAGATZ: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONCEPT PUD FOR A 10 UNIT TWIN HOME PROJECT AND A 66,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. Roger Knutson: There’s two ways you can do it. I mean it’s one, formally until you move to reconsider there’s nothing to discuss. So if you want to have a discussion, you could. Mayor Furlong: We could have an informational discussion. Roger Knutson: You could, I think the normal way you would do it is, is ask for presentation and then ask if there’s a vote to reconsider. And you get to there, a vote to reconsider brings it back in front of you for action. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Do you need a 4/5 vote on reconsideration like we needed to approve? Roger Knutson: No, not to reconsider, no. To reconsider it’s a simple majority vote. The action on the main item still requires a simple majority. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ms. Aanenson, why don’t you give us an update on the request and the applicant is here, we’ll certainly provide him time as well to address the council. Kate Aanenson: As you stated this item appeared at your last City Council meeting. The staff at that time was going for conceptual PUD. Staff recommended conceptual PUD with a couple of caveats, that the applicant, Epic Development is requesting reconsideration, specifically the reconsideration of the setback for a neighborhood business district and the number of pads, and that development not be proceed until the retail study, retail market study comes back. We have started the retail market study process. It’s our goal to have that done in April, but again the reason we did that is this property is guided residential and we have a lot of requests to build commercial and we’re very careful about the consideration of where we place that and we want to do our due diligence too and make sure that it’s appropriately located. Clearly the way it’s located we believe is some smaller kind of more typical box that we really try to discourage along the Highway 5 frontage, so we want to get additional input through the retail study on what needs may be out there and look at some of our options as far as if we were to rezone some other sites, based on traffic and those sort of things, where would those best, those sites be best suited. So with that we stand by our original recommendation of the conditions of approval. So I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any questions at this point for staff. No? Okay. Is Mr. Ragatz here this evening? Good evening. Would you like to address the council? Rich Ragatz: Yes please. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. 29 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Rich Ragatz: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Rich Ragatz, Epic Development, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. I was here last time and when it was tabled I ended up leaving. You guys voted on, that’s why I’d like you reconsider these three points. I guess the first one, I just think the setbacks for neighborhood business are more appropriate than what you’re looking at. 15 and 35 feet instead of the 50 and 75 feet from Highway 5 and Galpin. I think we could work things, move things around to make those other additional setbacks work if need be. Secondly the number of buildings, I think our market research is telling us that people want to have their own identity. Have smaller buildings. Their own building if possible and so we think, we hope that you’ll see the same thing. Thirdly, the market study. We just think ideally we’d like to move forward with our preliminary plat before the market study is completed. We’re looking to do office, mostly office and office service on the site and there’s been two sites that have been taken out of the office industrial zoning, the Madsen piece and the Bernardi piece and we’re only looking to rezone 8 acres versus about 200 acres that’s been taken out of that zoning designation. So we think that’s appropriate for us to get that rezoned hopefully through our preliminary plat process. If you don’t see it that way, maybe we could look at it with just the preliminary information so it doesn’t set us back several months, additional months. And just I’m here for comments. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I guess a question, couple questions. Being raised here. With regard to the setbacks, I’m just going back and looking at our staff report from the prior time. This was a concept PUD that was approved. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: So that is, is here’s what we’d like to do. Yeah, we give some feedback and look at it but ultimately when the preliminary comes forward is the issue. I’m trying to understand here or take a look for sure. What was the, under the concept plan, what was the proposed rezoning? It’s residential right now. What was it? Just a PUD-R? Kate Aanenson: PUD-R, yeah. And the use on it was neighborhood commercial, although…and actually industrial was what we were looking at. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Just to kind of step back and typically how we’ve done rezoning, if someone comes in for a significant rezoning for example, when you did look at the Bernardi piece which is now Town and Country, you had a project in front of you. Typically to get a rezoning this city has a history of looking at a project to say, that makes sense as a use. We don’t have that. That’s again the question…to say well maybe we need to see a little bit more. We’re replacing industrial land. To us it looks very typical. We have other people look at that, that that’s really a typical retail layout so we just have some concerns about that, so if it’s going to be retail, we’d like to have a grouping. If you look, what we spent a lot of time doing on the north side of West th 78 between Powers and going down to Kerber, you know we’ve really got some nice layout there. Kind of mutifying all those projects and that’s where, if were to do something like that and I think we’re just premature. 30 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: The issue of a number of smaller buildings versus fewer larger buildings. Is that an issue that we’ve dealt with before and give us some history there? Kate Aanenson: Well I think you know…function. You set yourself up for certain expectation of a use and that’s our concern and I think we’ve learned the history of that when we’ve had opportunities to subdivide into smaller lots or we’ve lost an opportunity to land a larger use and if we’re trying to get industrial, typically those are a little bit bigger footprint. So if it’s office, again I’m not sure who that would be because we’ve been working, we know who all the office people are looking so a lot of them, so we’re just kind of concerned about what that would be too. Again, when someone comes in on this kind of a project to look at a rezoning, typically there’s a lead. You’ve got a use that’s ready to go. I believe there is one. The rest I think may be a little bit more, we don’t know and that’s a concern. I think it’s, we have to be careful about what we’ve done to our core which is why we’ve done the retail study. Looking at that rezoning to say, if we’re going to rezone some property, where would that best be? …some other market needs. Where do we want to capture some of those? We’re careful about not doing strip along Highway 5. That’s always been our goal and I think that’s why we have what we have in the downtown so just being really careful about that decision. There’s no rush, in my opinion. Take our time and make a good decision. Mayor Furlong: I know we’ve had requests on other sites along Highway 5 for a number of smaller buildings. Multiple parcels versus sticking with larger buildings. The Steiner development where Lifetime Fitness is currently located I think was one of those where we had some, call it an opportunity if you will but a proposal to break that up into a number of smaller lots so. Okay. Councilman Peterson: And then the market study Kate, I can’t recall, when do we estimate that it’d be done again? st Kate Aanenson: April 1, yeah. So we kicked that off so we’re underway. Pretty good about that process. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff on this. Any discussion or comment on the issue? Councilman Peterson: I don’t see anything that’s changed since we last voted on this so. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think that the council, you know I think it’s, I’m glad that we had a chance here to think about these issues but again I think based on what we’ve heard this evening, I’m comfortable with the action that we took at our last meeting. Unless there’s anyone else that would like to at this point make a motion for reconsideration. Councilman Lundquist: No. Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I agree on waiting for the market study. I think it will be…make better decisions for the rezoning in the future. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think that’s, that is a, you raise a good point Councilwoman Tjornhom 31 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 about the marketing study and the value that that’s going to have across the entire city, especially in the…like this where we are looking at rezoning and location so. Thank you. I guess with that, if there’s no motion by the council we’ll just look forward to receiving the additional information in the time that we’ve discussed and allow the approval of last meeting to stand. Okay, thank you. ORCHARD GREEN, 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE, PETER KNAEBLE: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. Public Present: Name Address Steve Lynch 5225 Park Avenue Matt Pavek 7110 Plymouth Avenue No, Golden Valley John Dragseth 2600 Forest Avenue Jacqueline A. Dorsey 311 So. Water Street, Northfield Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.02 acre parcel into 4 single family homes. Just so you know when it originally came in with an additional lot, the staff did work looking at house sizes and reduced it down to 4. This item did appear before the th Planning Commission on December 6 to review the plat and the Planning Commission voted 5- 0 to approve the request. I believe there’s a little bit of controversy regarding dispute on the property line and why that condition was removed. It’s stated right here in the staff report, typically the city does not, because we’re not the interested party in this property line dispute, would not make that a condition of approval because in our opinion based on the amount of property in dispute, the lot, the plat would still go forward with the additional right-of-way being removed, and I’ll just show you that real quick here… If we were to lay this out the same, this is the area in red that’s in dispute. So even if that property was removed from the plat itself, the lots would still meet all the minimum requirements of the setback so if there is a dispute, and that property was to go away, you could still meet all those standards of the one part of the plat could be added administratively later so it’s really a civil matter that, so we addressed it in the cover memo. It was a Planning Commission item. Again we don’t hold up a plat for that so that’s why we moved, removed and put to the front of the agenda on the cover memo so we did address it. It wasn’t dropped. We just explained how we did that. With that I’ll just go through the plat quickly. There’s no street improvements for existing streets for the property so the 3 lots will have access via Orchard and the other one off of Forest. The average lot size is 22,000 so again kind of moving in that direction of little bit bigger lots for executive homes. There are no wetlands on the site. With this plat we’re looking at providing some additional easement for ponding in the future. There is some water issues in the area so with that we’re not putting a pond in at this time but we’re accommodating a drainage easement so in the future as we work through those issues, we can accommodate potentially a future pond, so they will be paying some ponding and quality fees through the subdivision. Again there are services in the area. Existing lots. It needs to be additional service line but that would be accommodated. Parks and trails, there is a park in the immediate vicinity so we’ll just be taking park and trail fees. There will be some tree replacement and approximately 19 trees to be replaced. All the lots do meet 32 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 the requirements of the city ordinance as far as area, frontage, depth and impervious surface so with that it appears to be a pretty clean subdivision. We are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report starting on page 8. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. If there are any. Councilwoman Tjornhom: It looks like the area is small enough so where like the hard surface coverage and stuff, that wouldn’t affect any amount. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that lot is, that lot itself is 26,000 square feet so there should be adequate. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to address the council on any issue? Matt Pavek: Council members, Mr. Mayor, my name is Matt Pavek with Terra Engineering. I’m one of the engineers and developers on the project and we just would like to say we concur with the staff report and available for any questions if you have any. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Okay, is there any? There was a public hearing conducted at the Planning Commission. And so this is not necessarily, we don’t hold the public hearing here but if there is any issue or public comment because of issues that have changed between the staff report and the Planning Commission or here, or anything else, certainly we’d like to hear that public comment as well. John Dragseth: Mayor, council members. 2600 Forest Avenue which is the property to the south. Southeast. I’m not prepared to address any substantive issues today because of the change. I first learned of this change this morning and therefore I don’t know what to say in response to what the staff has said. I haven’t had time to prepare that. What I’d like to address is procedure that occurred. The Planning Commission met and was presented by the city staff and the city staff inserted condition number 22 and presented it to the Planning Commission. That was all the Planning Commission saw. That’s all that they approved. I did not notice until this morning when looking at the presentation that would be given to the council that 22 had disappeared as a condition. That is something the Planning Commission was never shown. Never voted on. I don’t know what exactly why it was removed and moved to the cover page as I understand, but it was removed as a condition. I think it makes sense as a condition and when he, city staff first presented it I agreed to it and therefore I didn’t say anything at the Planning Commission about it. Did not have an opportunity to object to it at that time because it wasn’t an issue in the case. Did not have an opportunity to go through the appeal process from the Planning Commission because it was never an issue in this case. Learned about it for the first time this morning. Now it’s interesting when they first added it, the city staff first added it I asked why did you add it in that way and they said well because it’s a private issue. A civil issue and so we’ll just put it on there. Developer can take care of it as a private, civil issue as a preliminary to final plat. When I talked to city staff today and said why did you take it off, same reason. It’s a civil issue, a private issue. And apparently is now shifting the burden to me to take 33 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 care of it instead of the developer seeking approval from the city. I think that is an improper and probably legally infirm, although I haven’t been able to research this approach to doing this. There is, now granted a city can take any approach that they want within reason to approve these processes, but once you put rules and process in place you have to follow that process. That’s my general understanding of the rules. I don’t believe that process has been followed here. 22 is dropped without review of the Planning Commission. Without an opportunity to comment on it and then suddenly without notice put in a cover letter and said as a condition today. It’s also the dropping of it is questionable because the same reason for dropping it was the reason that was given for putting it on in the first place. Seems arbitrary, capricious to drop it at this point. Not sure why staff decided to drop it after they previously on their own motion put it in in the first place. I guess I’m kind of curious about what the basis for that, and ultimately it’s infirm because there was no notice for the change. I first found out about it this morning. Called staff immediately mid-morning. Didn’t get a response until after lunch when I actually called staff again and asked you know was this a mistake because I understand 22 was added right before the Planning Commission meeting. Kind of given an indication well no, it’s in there and I was shown it was in the cover letter. Part of the problem is, if you ever look at the cover letter on the web site all you see is a big black maple leaf because the watermark on the city stationary blacks out everything that’s on the cover letter, so I didn’t know about this change of any sort until really 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. I would say that that’s not adequate notice. So what I would propose to the City Council is that City Council approve the plan, the plat, preliminary plat as proposed to the Planning Commission and the same plat that the Planning Commission approved, and not shift the burden to clear up this civil issue onto somebody who is not seeking approval for the City Council’s vote. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments or reaction. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I’d like to have the city attorney explain or verify if any processes have been violated since the Planning Commission’s action on this. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. There’s no process that’s been violated. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to you and you take that into consideration. What the recommendation to you was is not in dispute and has not been concealed from you. You know what it was. It had that condition in there. Staff is recommending that that condition be deleted. It’s not unusual for the Planning Commission to recommend one thing and the staff to recommend something slightly different. And if I could just comment further on the dispute. First, the City as you know is not in a position to resolve property line disputes. I can issue an opinion and say here’s my opinion where it is, and that’s nice but the parties aren’t bound by it. I’m not a judge. This body is not, does not have authority to resolve property line disputes. So what we do is look at information to make sure a stranger to the title for example isn’t walking in here and saying I want to plat some property. We make sure you have an ownership interest in the property. And then here we have looked at it and this property, so you know, is Torrens property. There was a proceeding a number of years ago with this very issue, at least the record was resolved. Now someone can always challenge that later and the adjoining property owner if he chooses to challenge it, that’s the adjoining property owners’ prerogative to do so. From our 34 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 perspective as a city we look at, is this something that should hold up approval, and our judgment is no. That if someone wants to bring this on further and have it resolved, there’s mechanisms to do that. There are courts. We don’t think it should up the plat. Councilman Peterson: Do we even have a legal right to stop that? Isn’t that kind of your point? Roger Knutson: Yes. That’s my point. Mayor Furlong: Okay. John Dragseth: Is it possible to address two of those points quickly? Mayor Furlong: Certainly, please. Keep it brief. John Dragseth: First point, it may not be unusual for city staff to disagree with the Planning Commission. What is unusual is for city staff to recommend a point. The Planning Commission to approve it, and then city staff without any explanation to remove that exact same condition that they put in themselves. Second point on the Torrens. There are two types of Torrens. It wasn’t mentioned. If you read the Chapter 508.23 of the Minnesota Statute you can do a simple Torrens where you register the property in general. There’s also a registration of the boundary. This property did not have the boundary registered. Thank you. Jacqueline Dorsey: My name is Jacqueline Dorsey of Visten, Dahl, Marsh and Dorsey, 311 South Water Street, Northfield. I am counsel for Sandra and Dwayne Johnson. They are the current owners of the property. I just wanted to bring up a couple of issues. First of all Mr. Knutson is correct that the Johnson’s own Torrens property. It was registered, almost 16 years ago. The Johnsons agree with the new recommendation of the Planning, of the city planner that item number 22 be deleted requiring a resolution of that property dispute. I believe that they’re correct in their assessment. First of all it would be extremely dangerous, again as Mr. Knutson pointed out, if anyone could come in and say I have a concern about a boundary line or I think part of that property belongs to me and every subdivision that comes before this council would roll to a stand still. It would also be changing the course of the current laws which require someone who has a boundary dispute and believes that they have an interest in the property, right now they have the responsibility to take some action if they believe they need to protect their property. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sir, you have a public comment on this entire project, the proposed subdivision? Very good, thank you. With that, are there any follow up questions for staff or for the applicant? Okay. Then we’ll bring it back to council for discussion. Thoughts or comments. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I think, like you said, pretty straight forward. We don’t often see ones that come along that are this straight forward without a lot of the stuff, especially Kate like you said before with what’s left in the city. They’re usually the more difficult ones so, and as far as the condition in or not in. I did see this condition 22 when I looked at the Planning Commission verbatim things and along with Mr. Knutson and staff, I’d say it’s, since Mr. Ayotte isn’t here anymore I would venture that we don’t have a dog in that fight so. Regardless of 35 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 whether 22 is in or not, I think I would, I would have recommended that it be removed anyway so that point, anyway. So I think cut and dried. Pretty cut and dried here. No issues and support the proposal as published in the final staff report with conditions. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments, discussion. Councilman Labatt: I would echo Mr. Lundquist in supporting the conditions 1 through 21. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: As well as I. Mayor Furlong: Same? Very good, thank you. Without restating the issues, the subdivision does meet ordinance and that’s what we’re looking for and it went through the process with the Planning Commission adopting approval. I do agree with Councilman Lundquist with regard to that last condition and the reason that it would likely not be approved as well. That’s not, those types of conditions and proposals have come before this council that I’ve been involved in and they’ve come out each time so. With that, is there a motion? To approve, which I believe begins on. Councilman Labatt: Move approval for. Mayor Furlong: Do you have a page number? Councilman Labatt: Preliminary Plat for Case 05-42, subject to the following conditions 1 through 21 in the staff report dated. Mayor Furlong: Today. th Councilman Labatt: January 9. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped “Received November 4, 2005”, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. 36 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 2. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as preserved that are removed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 3. The water and sanitary hook-ups for lot 2 must be moved to the driveway in order to preserve the 12” maple. 4. The developer must obtain all permits necessary to remove the existing homes. 5. The grading plan must be revised as follows: a. All proposed contours must tie in to existing contours, particularly the 992’, 990’ and 988’ contours on the west side of Lot 1; and the 996’, 994’ and 992’ contours on the east side of Lot 3. b. Staff recommends that the low floor elevations for Lots 1 and 2 be lowered one foot to achieve an 8 foot walkout. Staff recommends that steps be installed in the garage on Lots 3 and 4 to achieve an 8 foot walkout. c. A drainage breakpoint elevation must be shown northeast of the building pad corner on Lot 3. 6. Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall events. 7. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The developer must acquire a Work in Right of Way Permit from the Engineering Department before commencing work in the right of way and shall submit a financial security to ensure that Orchard Lane and Forest Avenue are properly restored after the services have been installed. 10. The developer shall pay the $29,298.00 trunk and lateral water and sewer fees in cash with the final plat or assess them to the lots within the proposed development. The lateral connection charges can be assessed at 8% for 8 years. The trunk hookup charges can be assessed at 8% for 4 years. 11. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 12. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA and the Watershed District. 37 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 13. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 14. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 15. The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s). 16. The plans shall be revised to expand the drainage and utility easement in a straight line from the point where the 978 elevation intersects the east lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, to where the 978 elevation intersects the 20’ sanitary sewer easement at the southern edge of Lot 4, Block 1. Standard drainage & utility easements shall be dedicated in all other locations. 17. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.02 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $2,208; the water quantity fees are approximately $5,464. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $7,672. 18. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Orchard Green pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total $16,000 (4 lots x $4,000). 19. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 20. Provide a cleanout on the sewer service for Lot 3. 21. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 38 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 BLUFF CREEK TWIN HOMES, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD & HIGHWAY 101, MARTIN SCHUTROP: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE 2000 MUSA; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES FOR AN 18 UNIT TWIN HOME DEVELOPMENT, 2 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor and council. This subject site is located at the corner of Lyman Boulevard and 101. It’s located on the south west corner. This area currently is not in the MUSA based on the fact that doing the improvements on 101 and Lyman and the property immediately to the west…subdivided, staff felt it’d be prudent to work with the property owner to advance this development of this project, so it does require a land use amendment again which th we support. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on December 6. There were a couple changes that the Planning Commission did recommend and I’ll go through those. This is the subject site. I’m trying to follow the paper and it’s not matching up. There we go. It’s a little bit complex in the fact that we have to get the access to this street to tie into the future access, so that’d be a property that’s coming, what was the Sand’s property and now looks like it will be developed by the Shelard Group at the intersection there, and then also there is a gas line easement which we’ll touch a little bit more about in a minute. And then there’s also the Bluff Creek Overlay District, a significant wetland so it would be the appropriate land use. It’d be hard to get a single family neighborhood in there based on the size itself to try to make that transition to the Springfield neighborhood. Commercial across the street. You’ve got some larger lots to the west so in looking at this staff felt that a twin home PUD seemed to make the most sense. Again density on this we’re looking at 18 lots. These are more a traditional twin home as you can see. In putting together the PUD you can have 30%. In working with the applicant we actually got it down to 25% and put together a compliance table. The home sites themselves would be one story. I think it’s a really nice design. A different product. We do have variation in the fact that there’s some of the units will actually be side loaded. One of the variances that we’re requesting is a 50 foot street and that allows, based on the pitching of the gas line, it’s actually in this area. We talked about this earlier that it’s a 60 foot easement in here. It was actually a 50 foot setback so as we stated earlier and looked at that ordinance, we’re trying to have some consistency. It’s difficult for the staff too but this has quite a bit of setback from the street, so that actually gives a built in buffer for that. One of the things that the Planning Commission looked at is they wanted to see access through this via this cul-de-sac to get back up to this…So I touched on some of the major developments itself. Again we looked at the PUD as an appropriate tool to create that transition between the surrounding land uses. Again doing a twin homes, keeping it underneath the density. We did put together design standards. I showed you a typical house but if you look at on page 5, we put together some setback standards. Again the interior lot lines. 5 foot so those houses, while they had their own lot, they’ll be 10 feet apart but 5 on each side. And that was one of the recommendations that the developers adhere to a 5 foot setback requirement. There’s a few that didn’t and that they show the trail. There was also a large water line that they’ll have to incorporate going along 101 and that one can accommodate potential developments in the future. So again this wetland, kind of the water demarcation that we further develop like that is in the 2010 but that will be the buffer for that. There’s no park dedication. There’s a park across the street so we’re taking fees for that. There is a conditional use for development within the overlay district. They’re not 39 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 touching the primary district but there will be some minor grading so water quantity and quality fees, handling the ponding on site. Be taking those. Again the 50 foot street. We’ll have a 31 foot cross section which is our standard again. We supported that 50 foot in order, because we’ve got this excessive setback requirement here, and allow for some of those side loaded garages. We think it will add a lot of street interest too. There will be tree replacement. Approximately 23 trees. So with that there are 4 motions. We are recommending approval. There are 4 motions. One for the comp plan amendment advancing this into the MUSA. Again we believe that’s prudent because we’re doing all the improvements on the 3 sides, major sides of the property. Rezoning it to the, they’re going for concept and preliminary PUD and a preliminary plat and then finally on page 16 the conditional use permit for work within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, where does the, where’s the MUSA line now? Is that on Lyman or where? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s on Lyman. Yep. Councilman Lundquist: And with the, then what’s the western, or I guess the eastern boundary of the MUSA area now? Kate Aanenson: It’d be, we’d move it to here. Those lots. Councilman Lundquist: Where is it currently? Kate Aanenson: Oh, it’s actually right on 101. I’m sorry. Today, 101 correct. Mayor Furlong: It’s 101 and Lyman isn’t it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, because you have the Springfield development that’s in. It will go down just to Bandimere. It kind of cuts across… Councilman Lundquist: Okay, where 101 makes a jog there is where, if you continued that straight, that’s where it is there. So this is probably what, 200 feet? Something like that. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s contiguous on the north and on the east side to the current MUSA. And again we felt the timing of that, in meeting with the City Engineer and the property owner, this probably goes back a year. Our development of Lyman and 101 significantly impacts the property, so we felt it’d be prudent to let them make some wise decisions while we’re looking at all this development and then have them not be able to make some plans for that. Councilman Lundquist: So then along those lines, when we just approved a study or dollars for a study tonight on 101, on the consent agenda, do we have any idea of what that’s going to look like or what might or might not happen with, and I’d hate for something like this to come in, 40 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 spend all the money, do all the work and then all of a sudden we have a study that says well maybe we should put a road right through the middle of it or something like that. Kate Aanenson: 101 at this intersection…will not be changed. Actually they’re building the new part of 101 terminus to here, so and that includes, it’s restricted median through here too to access was another reason why it’s restricted on 101. Just past this I believe. Mayor Furlong: You’re saying as part of this. Part of the new Highway 212 construction overall project with the realignment of 101, this part south of Lyman on 101 is already part of that development project. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: We’re not…create median in there. Kate Aanenson: Which is one of the reasons we wanted to advance it because they’re being impacted, and that restricts development because there’s actually a median I believe to, almost to the cul-de-sac length so it’s restricted. You know one way, right-in/right-out. We looked at some of those issues too as far as stacking, so that’s already being accommodated with the 212/101 construction, but you’re right. After that. Councilman Lundquist: So this is far enough… Kate Aanenson: Yep, and after that we have to examine the rest of that property. Then we kind of get into that wetland area, those curves and that. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. And then the park, I’m assuming when you said a park across the street you’re talking about Bandimere? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: Do we have some provisions then to get from here over there without having to try to dodge traffic across 101? Kate Aanenson: Right I think, that was one of the reasons why the Planning Commission felt strongly about this and making this connection to get you across the street and go back down. I think long term wise we’ll have to look at that with 101 construction. Councilman Lundquist: So is there a controlled intersection there for people to cross at Lyman? Lyman and 101 will be a controlled intersection? Paul Oehme: Yeah, there’ll be a signal there. There’ll be, there already is an existing trail along the east side of 101 and that will be improved in connection with the 212 project. Councilman Lundquist: Right, just so these people can get across 101. Okay. 41 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Kate Aanenson: I did want to point out one other things. I gave revised findings of fact. That should also be included as part of your motion too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom: My only concern was the trail going to Bandimere Park. I realize it will be probably an empty nester type of place, or a life cycle which I like but I still would hate to see little kids trying to zig zag across those roads on their bike. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions for staff. Councilman Peterson: The only one I had Kate is one of the negatives of using your Planning Commission to see some of these drawings is the elevations are kind of tough to see. As I visual the space, we’ve got some pretty good elevation changes. I’m guessing 30-40 feet. Is it dropping from Lyman south? The road in and of itself in and out is going to be relatively level isn’t it? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, up at the top of the street you’re at 923 and then back… Councilman Peterson: 30 plus feet. Kate Aanenson: Dropping back…then the biggest change is where it comes back of those lots…walk out on the backs of those. Mayor Furlong: Can you point to us on there where the existing home is located approximately? Kate Aanenson: Right there. Mayor Furlong: Right in there, okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and the driveway was coming here, so again for lifestyle for them to be able to do that, restricting the access point. Making those changes kind of letting them make some other hard decisions. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else Councilman Peterson? Questions? Councilman Labatt? Councilman Labatt: No sir. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, when you looked at the comp plan stuff, this area, what was the original guiding for it? Kate Aanenson: Low density. It does meet the low density requirements, so it’s within that. I’m sorry, I should have stated that. 42 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: You probably did. Kate Aanenson: No, I don’t think I did. It’s actually guided low density and that’s what they’re coming in at. It goes up to 4 units an acre. That on this is actually 3.3. 3.38. And again, we were trying to balance that because you have some existing larger homes and the single family and commercial, what makes the most sense. And the price point and the look. We think it adds a different type of product. Housing product in the city, which is a nice balance. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Couple of questions in terms of the, and this may be a question for Mr. Oehme. In terms of the length of that cul-de-sac and how, it looks like the right-of-way comes right up to the right-of-way on 101, is that correct? Paul Oehme: 8 feet away I believe. Mayor Furlong: It’s 8 feet away, okay. Is there any issue or concern with regard to cars driving on that road with traffic on 101 in terms of distraction? And I’m thinking specifically in the evening with lights and headlights and such like that. Kate Aanenson: We can look at landscaping maybe too Paul. Mayor Furlong: Anything to, I guess has that been addressed or not? And if not, can we consider. Paul Oehme: We can look at it. It’s a good point. We didn’t really take a look at it. The trips generated on the new roadway. Mayor Furlong: They’ll be limited. Paul Oehme: Be very limited so I don’t know how much conflict it would be. Mayor Furlong: And there may not be but I, the right-of-way looks like it comes, if there’s 8 feet between the two right-of-ways then, is that part of the private property for one of the lots or does it touch? You’d still have the 15 foot from the curb to the right-of-way is about 15 feet there so you’d have that buffer area. But you don’t want to be planting anything in there. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And there’s also a significant water line going down there…We can look at that. 43 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Take a look at that between preliminary and final. The other question I have, is the, or the access point for this road off of Lyman, is that then where we will line up the access point for the property to the north? Kate Aanenson: That’s the intent. Mayor Furlong: That’s the intent. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’re just trying to get clarification on that. I think from Paul and I meeting with MnDot, wanted that road, we have a water line to shift that as it touches down at Lyman, to shift that a little bit to the east to have the roadway over our water, our utilities there. So that is the goal. That has to be shifted all before it comes back for final plat. Mayor Furlong: Just for understanding, where does this Highway 101 from the north currently come down just across from that road? Can you see? Okay, so it’s right in there. Okay. What’s the anticipated access control, or the control onto Lyman for those two roads? Paul Oehme: Onto Lyman there? There won’t be any signals or controlled. Mayor Furlong: It will just be stop lights going onto Lyman, correct? Or stop signs. Paul Oehme: There will be, well at the new intersection there there will be turn lanes designated for right turn lanes and left turn lanes into the property so there will be controlled access into that site via the turn lanes but. Mayor Furlong: On Lyman. Paul Oehme: On Lyman, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, but there isn’t going to be a stop light or anything? Paul Oehme: No stop signs, no stop lights. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, and it’s not restricted to a right-in/right-out? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Oehme: It will be a full access. Kate Aanenson: I think there is a median but it stops… Paul Oehme: Yeah, it might be farther up on 101. 44 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay, and the area of Bluff Creek, just for clarification. It might be in the staff report. If it is I apologize for the redundant question but is that the primary zone or secondary zone? Kate Aanenson: …that would be the secondary zone. It’s a no touch in the primary zone which is not. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Does the primary zone come onto the property though? Kate Aanenson: Yes it does. Mayor Furlong: Okay so, and these all meet the setbacks from that? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Good, thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the applicant here this evening? Good evening. Martin Schutrop: Good evening council and Mayor. My name is Martin Schutrop. I’m the developer of the property and so I’m here to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Appreciate you being here. Again this was heard at the Planning Commission. The public hearing was held. I don’t know that there were any significant changes but if somebody would like to provide any comments to the council, we’d be happy to hear them at this time. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Hello again. Mayor Furlong: Hello. Thanks for waiting. Debbie Lloyd: I would have sent this via e-mail but I was not able to access all the information on the web site last night. It was my first opportunity to review everything and I do have two concerns. One, I did address during the meeting and I didn’t see any update on it in the report and I know how many details there are to review so I just want to bring it up one more time again. The interior, no I’m sorry, the interior, I’m looking at this. Lot 1 and 2. Interior public right-of-way. Page 5 of the report. Lot 1 and 2 have a 20 foot interior public right-of-way. In Section 20-506, which I didn’t have with me at the Planning Commission meeting, it states that the minimum setback is supposed to be 30 feet but it may be waived by the City Council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced…minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained. I didn’t see anything to indicate the environmental enhancement by reducing the setback to 20 feet. And then seeing the walkway in there, I’m thinking how far is that going to be from those homes? I mean basically that’s cutting in. So I just want, in case you weren’t alerted to that, I just wanted to make you aware of that fact. And then the second question I have is, because it is a private street, and there’s no parking I believe on private streets in PUD’s, where will people park since, I mean really they’re cut off from parking on other streets. Perhaps there should be provision for parking in this development. Thank you. 45 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you Ms. Lloyd. First question was on the justification for the 20 foot setback for Lots 1 and 2 versus 30. Kate Aanenson: I think it’s woven into the 50 foot street setback and the fact that we’ve got that excessive gas line easement pinched by the Bluff Creek Overlay District and in a PUD you can set what other standards you want to put in place. So this circumstance, and to allow for the architectural change that the staff wanted of the side loaded garage and add interest, to give them that relief. And the circumstance when we looked at guest parking, we accommodate based on this type of product, there is stacking in the driveway itself to accomplish that. Kind of treat this similar to what we have on other twin home projects or our single home. Most the guest parking is in the driveway. Mayor Furlong: Clarification I guess then, because the staff report refers to public right-of-way, is the cul-de-sac itself a private street or would that be a public street? Paul Oehme: The street itself? Mayor Furlong: The cul-de-sac. Paul Oehme: The cul-de-sac is. Kate Aanenson: It’s a public street. Mayor Furlong: Private street as I understood in reading the report and the minutes of the Planning Commission related to the shared driveways for the side loaded garages, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: That’s my understanding, correct. Mayor Furlong: So the private streets are the access to the garages off of the public street? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So I think, I don’t know Ms. Lloyd, that’s how I understood it when I looked at that. That because you’re two properties sharing the same driveway, by definition it becomes a private street. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Because it’s going to have the same cross section on pavement width 31 that we would have on a normal street. Mayor Furlong: Okay, but the cul-de-sac is a public right-of-way? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: With normal. 46 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Kate Aanenson: It’s a private street when you’ve got the driveway… Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess to the specific question, what’s the environmental interest with regard to the setback to 20 feet. I heard the Bluff Creek Overlay District mentioned as one of the issues. Kate Aanenson: Correct. As you’re dropping those slopes back down, it’s encumbered by an excessive pipeline easement. We felt narrowing that and pushing those driveways closer, you got the adequate parking with the street and the driveways. We felt that would work and to turn the garages. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments on this project? Okay, thank you. I’ll bring it back to council for discussion. And I’m going to take an amalgamate question. On the extending the MUSA over this area, does that create, are there any other issues or precedence that’s being created there? I mean this particular case it seems to me… Kate Aanenson: I think our approach with the Met Council is the fact to bring this forward we felt comfortable in the fact that we’re doing a substantial regional system change that has implication for this corner and we think that that’s the major issue. Mayor Furlong: It’s contiguous on both sides. Kate Aanenson: Yeah with two state highways, or two regional systems. The state highway and the county collector road. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments. Discussion on the project. Councilman Lundquist: My only comments would be not generally in favor of you know rushing and kind of piecemeal development, which one could argue either way on this one but since Kate I think you made a good point of this one kind of being squeezed on a lot of directions and so I’m inclined to make an exception here and go through that and give us one little piece in there and, seems like a good project. A good product that we don’t have a lot of or any of so, you know inclined to say okay on this piece on something that generally I wouldn’t support for those reasons but think this one warrants it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think that to, it adds a certain amount of housing stock that we don’t have a lot of in Chanhassen. It’s one of those things that cycles through but I think it seems to be a very nice design into our community so, I certainly believe the exceptions are with merit. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments, Councilwoman Tjornhom. 47 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson. I think it’s a good fit for the area concerning what’s going to be going on around it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt: Agree with everybody. I think the timing is correct with, considering what’s happening with 212 and 101. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I would concur. I think to ask this property owner to wait, there doesn’t seem to be the justification. I think anytime, to Councilman Lundquist’s point, I think you need to be very hesitate to deviate from the comprehensive plan but I think when you merit or weigh the merits of the individual case, I think this one certainly is justified and it’s, it works on a number of different levels, which have been mentioned so I would certainly support it as well. Any further discussion? If not, is there a motion? The motions I believe begin on page 409 of our electronic packet. Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I move that we approve comprehensive plan amendment to incorporate the property in the current Urban Service Area subject to review and the approval of the Met Council. Condition A. Can we take these all at one time or do we take them all as one? Mayor Furlong: I don’t know that there’s any reason to split them unless there’s, let’s make them at once and. Councilman Labatt: Okay, so I move condition A, B and C in staff report subject to the following conditions as indicated and set forth, and adopting the current new findings of fact. Kate Aanenson: And there’s one other, D is actually on page 16. So it’s A, B, C, D. Mayor Furlong: D moves down to the Wetland Alteration, is that right? Bluff Creek Overlay District. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, the findings of fact go with C correct? Kate Aanenson: With all of them. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And condition D. Mayor Furlong: So items A, B, C and D with conditions laid out in the staff report for each of those individual items is appropriate, subject to the revised findings of fact. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none we’ll proceed with the vote. 48 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the following items subject to the revised Findings of Fact: A. Resolution #2006-05: The City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating the property in the current Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. B. Approval of the Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development rezoning the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development- Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. C. Approval of the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets with a variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access lots 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated October 28, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk connection on the south side of the street from the internal street cul-de-sac to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard shall be provided. 2. The development shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 3. Applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 84 trees. At least one tree is required in each front yard. Common areas must be sodded and provided with irrigation. Native plantings will be required along the southern edge of the development parallel to the wetland. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan planting list. 4. Applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the bufferyards. 5. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 49 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 9. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and the new proposed road, and one in the area of Lot 13/14. 12. A minimum 16.5 foot buffer strip shall be maintained from the delineated edge of the wetland. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 13. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over all of Outlot B. The developer may dedicate Outlot B to the City. 14. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 15. All structures shall meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary of theBluff Creek Overlay Districtas required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading shall occur within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. The plans shall be revised to eliminate grading within 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. 16. The plans shall be revised to include the City of Chanhassen’s standard detail 5300 for silt fence. Type 2 silt fence shall be used along the southern grading limits and at the normal water level of the pond. Type 1 silt fence shall be used elsewhere. Silt fence shall be installed around the storm water pond at the pond’s normal water level until surrounding areas have adequate vegetative erosion control established. 17. The plans shall be revised to include City of Chanhassen standard detail 5302A for Wimco or similar catch basin inlet protection. 18. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days 50 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 19. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City, Carver County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements. 20. A SWPPP should be developed by Ryan Engineering for the site which would encompass an erosion and sediment control plan. The SWPPP is needed prior to applying for the NPDES permit. 21. Erosion control blanket is needed for the slopes NE of lot 18 and the southern slopes from about the 912 / 910 proposed contours to the bottom of the slope within 14 days of final grade. 22. Energy dissipation at the FES inlet to the permanent storm water pond is needed. A detail is needed. 23. The proposed storm water basin must be used as a temporary sediment trap during construction and must be excavated in the initial construction phases of the development. A temporary diversion berm should be constructed to divert runoff from lots 18 to 11 into the pond. This should be included in the SWPPP. 24. A temporary outlet and / or a temporary stabilized EOF for the temporary basin is needed. 25. Inlet controls are needed for the CB’s within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed; Chanhassen city specifications are Wimco type inlet control or equal. 26. The silt fence as proposed is running up and down the slope along the west and east boundaries of the site. The silt fence must be installed with J-hooks to effectively provide sediment control and not concentrate runoff to the south. 27. A concrete washout area is needed in the SWPPP; silt fence, sump area and rock driveway should be used and could be located in Outlot A. 28. A permanent outlet structure is needed for the permanent storm water basin in the southwest corner of the pond. Detail is needed. 29. A stable emergency over flow (EOF) is needed for the permanent storm water basin. Riprap or a turf reinforcement mate (TRM) could be used and specifications and detail area needed. 30. The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on BMPs as needed or required. 51 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 31. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $21,857. 32. The final plans must include the following revisions: a. Existing contours within 100 feet of the proposed development must be shown on the plan. b. Note the top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls. c. Note the location and elevation of the emergency overflow on the east end of the cul de sac. d. A full-size drainage area map must be submitted. e. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk must be constructed on one side of the street. f. Show the proposed street light layout. g. A stop sign must be installed at the intersection at Lyman Boulevard. h. All plan sheets must be signed by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 33. If import or export of material is required for the development of this property, the applicant must submit a detailed haul route to the City. 34. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed/abandoned. 35. The developer must field verify the sewer and watermain stub locations and elevations. If the stubs have not been installed the developer shall directional bore the utilities under Lyman Boulevard. All costs and permits associated with this work would be the developer’s responsibility. 36. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat and shall include all required information. 37. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 38. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Department of Health, MCES, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 39. Access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the benefiting properties for the private streets. 40. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the 52 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project. 41. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Existing utilities and on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance applicable regulations. 42. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 43. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and cannot be constructed until a building permit is obtained. 44. The applicant shall create a Homeowners Association to take responsibility of the retaining walls and maintain them. 45. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 46. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official.” 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest corner of 101 and Lyman. 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements. 49. The developer shall install a 16 inch watermain along 101 and loop the watermain within the project to this watermain. The city will reimburse the developer for the costs of oversizing the pipe for the 16 inch watermain. D. Approval of Conditional Use Permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. No grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor boundary. 2. All structures must meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Just a quick comment. We had a number of these items that came through the Planning Commission and I think they did a great job working through a number of the issues here so, Ms. Aanenson and Mr. Papke who are here, I think the Planning Commission did a good job on all these so we appreciate your efforts. Please relay that back to them. That completes the items of new business. 53 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: If none I would direct my fellow council members to the second to last page under the correspondence. After a couple pages of financial reporting. Page 528 on the electronic packet. That is an invitation to a meeting that will be put on at Carver County this th coming Saturday, the 14. This is the outgrowth of recommendations for Eastern Carver County Leadership group which Mr. Gerhardt and I regularly attend, which consists of the cities within School District 112 and the county and the school district. This is a matter that’s really relating to emergency preparedness within our county, within our city. I think this is something that we’ll be looking at going forward this year. I think this was suggested and I think periodic review of what we have in place, we have systems in place but I think it’s important that we periodically review it. I would hope that all of us can attend. I know that they’ve extended the invitation to cities and elected officials across the county so, Mr. Gerhardt if we can be sure that that gets posted as a meeting with the likelihood that a quorum may be present there. But this is a good opportunity for all of us to get together to understand what level of preparedness is in place. To ask questions. To meet with other elected officials as well, so I would hope that people can attend. Any other council presentations? Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: If you go to the last page we have our building permit valuation summary and didn’t put this in for any reason but to keep you updated on the history of our building permit valuations. We ended 2005 meeting our goal on revenue. Might be a little bit under, but kind of a nice little history there. Residential in the earlier years, ’98 through probably about 2003 were heavy on the residential, light on the commercial. Kind of the last 2 years we’ve been heavy on the commercial and kind of light on the residential but if you look 2003, 04 and 05, in 2003 we had a non-profit, I think it was St. Hubert’s expansion. There was $5 million, or probably Westwood Church. $5 million there so we’ve pretty much been the same level for the last 3 years when it comes to residential and commercial and addition valuations from a tax paying standpoint. So, any questions on any of those? Some other good news that we received this past week, the Chamber has selected the City as a finalist as the Business of the Year potential th recipient and that presentation will be made at their January 24 luncheon. I think I sent an e- mail out to council members and mayor on that so if anybody is interested in attending that, let me know and I can send in an RSVP for you. So I don’t know who the other finalists are, but it was just nice to be named in that group. I think we had a great 2005 and I think this is a little nice recognition just to be a finalist. I think I notified everybody on Christmas Eve we had a carbon monoxide scare at a residential home where we had 5 adults, or 4 adults, or 2 adults and 3 children that had come down with carbon monoxide poisoning. Were sent down to Hennepin Medical Center for treatment. Just want to get the message out there that everybody should have a carbon monoxide detector in their homes. This is a real wake-up call. Luckily it turned out in favor of the homeowners and our volunteer firemen did a fantastic job of responding and recognizing the problem right off the bat so. And the homeowners for calling 911 when they detected people weren’t feeling well so. Dizziness. Lightness of the head and headaches are some of the symptoms for that, and I’m sure Greg Geske will probably talk a little bit about that at our next City Council meeting. With that, that’s all I had. 54 City Council Meeting – January 9, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 55