C Packet 2006 09 25AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. Interview Planning Commission Applicants.
B. Key Financial Strategy: TH 101 Corridor Scoping Study, PW 067F4.
C. Key Financial Strategy: District 112 Secondary School Referendum Update.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 28, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated August 28, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated August 28, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated August 15, 2006
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated August 15, 2006
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated September 5, 2006
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated September 5, 2006
- Park and Recreation Summary Minutes dated August 22, 2006
- Park and Recreation Verbatim Minutes dated August 22, 2006
b. TH 312/212 Project No. 03-09: Approve TH 212 Change Orders with MnDOT.
c. Dogwood Road Improvement Project No. 06-06: Award Consultant Contract to
Kimley-Horn.
e. Longacres Drive Stormwater Pond Outlet Improvement & Lyman Boulevard
Sewer Repairs Project Nos.06-08 & 06-09: Award Contract.
f. Boulder Cove:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Boulder Cove Project No. 06-15: Approve Development Contract & Plans
Specifications.
g. Pioneer Pass:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Pioneer Pass, Project 06-16: Approve Development Contract &
Construction Plans and Specifications.
h. 2007 Street Reconstruction (Koehnen & Yosemite Area) Project 07-01: Approve
Amendment to Consultant Contract with Bolton & Menk.
i. Marvin & Patricia Onken, 6221 Greenbriar Avenue: Approval of Variance
Request for Use of a Single-Family Dwelling as a Two-Family Dwelling on
Property Located in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District.
j. Approval of Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the General Election.
k. Amendments to City Code:
1) Approval of Ordinance Amendments to Chanhassen City Code: Chapter
18, Subdivisions (Including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes)
and Chapter 20, Zoning.
2) Approval of Ordinance Amendments to Chanhassen City Code:
Chapters 1, 4, 7, & 13.
l. Approval of Audit and Accounting Services Contract.
m. Approve Resolution Authorizing Multi-Year Winter Trail Activities Permit with
Three Rivers Park District for Minnesota River Bluff LRT Route.
n. Fox Den Project No. 05-10: Accept Streets, Storm Sewer and Utility Improvements.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
2. a. School District 112 Referendum Update
b. Eagle Scout Project, Scott Cummings
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
3. a. Sgt. Ross Gullickson, Carver County Sheriff's Department
b. Chief Gregg Geske, Chanhassen Fire Department
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
4. Appointment to the Planning Commission.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: TH 101 Corridor Scoping Study (Lyman Blvd. South to the Scott
County Line) PW067F4: Council Update
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2006, the Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement with Carver
County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to fund the corridor study.
The Agreement splits equally the funding of the project between the three agencies.
On February 27, 2006, Council approved a consultant contract to study the TH 101
corridor for potential future improvements.
On July 11, 2006, staff held an open house meeting. The meeting was structured so
the public could:
1. Assist in identifying existing issues along the corridor.
2. Assist in developing potential solutions to existing and future
problems along the corridor.
3) Become familiar with the study schedule and process.
Over 300 individual notices were sent out for this meeting. This was the first of three
open house meetings planned for this project. Staff has received many comments and
suggestions from this meeting.
DISCUSSION
Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study is to identify deficiencies and
improvements necessary for a two-lane, 3.3 mile segment of the Minnesota Highway
101 (“MN Highway 101”) Corridor in Chanhassen between Lyman
Boulevard/County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18 on the north and the Scott County
Line on the south.
Study Objectives:
· Correct safety deficiencies.
· Improve operation of the Old U.S. Highway 212 /MN Highway 101
Intersection at the “Wye”.
· Improve ability to function as a Minor Arterial Roadway.
· Accommodate future traffic growth associated with greater “connectivity”
with new TH 212.
Todd Gerhardt
September 25, 2006
Page 2
· Accommodate future local development growth.
· Identify short-term and long-term improvements.
Study Components:
· Scoping
o Concept development
o Environmental screening
· Public Involvement
o 3 Open House Meetings
o§ Identify issues (meeting held on July 11, 2006)
o§ Review concepts
o§ Comment on alternatives recommended for further study
o The website for the project is located at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projects/101chanhassen/overview.ht
ml
A link to this website is available at the City of Chanhassen website.
· Traffic Forecasting and Analysis
· Preliminary Design
· Agency Involvement
· Selection of Alternative for Further Study
· Identify Right-of-Way Needs for Alternative
· Define Environmental Review Process needed for Next Steps
The tentative schedule as we move forward is as follows:
Fall 2006: Complete development of preliminary
alternatives; hold second open house meeting.
Winter 2006/2007: Select preferred alignment that finalizes scoping
study report. Identify right-of-way needs for
future improvements.
Future Steps: Additional studies of alternatives considered;
preliminary and final design activities, secure
funding, and schedule construction.
Staff will be giving a brief presentation on what has been accomplished to date and
discuss several alignment alternatives.
Attachment
c: Mike Kotila
g:\eng\public\pw067f4 th 101 scoping study -lyman south to 212\092506 bkgd council ws update (rev1).doc
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Body Text, Indent: Left:
1", Hanging: 1.5"
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
AUGUST 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 6:10 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Greg Sticha, and Paul Oehme
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY 2007 BUDGET & LEVY.
Greg Sticha reviewed changes made since the last City Council meeting on this item. After
receiving new information from the County on housing starts, staff revised the numbers and
outlined 3 levy scenarios. One, using case reserves to bring a net effect of 0%. Two, not using
cash reserves but budget reductions that would bring a net effect of 0%. And three, following
last year's budget process using reductions in the debt service levy to bring a net effect to
property owners of -1.02%. Staff was recommending the City Council set the preliminary levy
at $9,575,778 using scenario 1 or 2. Todd Gerhardt explained that the health insurance numbers
came in at a 6.9% increase as opposed to 15% which was proposed earlier, resulting in a budget
reduction of $34,000. Mayor Furlong asked what percentage of employees went with the health
savings plan versus Blue Cross insurance. Greg Sticha stated he would investigate the matter.
Councilman Peterson asked staff to explain how the 5% number for salary increase was
determined. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked staff to talk about the numbers relating to the new
compensation plan instituted last year and capital replacement fund numbers. Councilman
Lundquist asked how the preliminary levy numbers compared with 2006 and what would need to
be done to get to last year's levy amount. Mayor Furlong felt the preliminary numbers proposed
by staff were reasonable and the City Council will review individual department numbers in the
coming months to find cuts. Councilman Lundquist asked why the levy couldn't be reduced by
the $34,000 savings in health insurance and $60,000 for a new police investigator. Todd
Gerhardt explained how new growth has to be taken into account in the levy numbers and would
recommend keeping the levy as proposed. Councilman Peterson asked staff for accurate
numbers for growth over the last 3 years, market value real growth numbers versus estimated
numbers.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
AUGUST 28, 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, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Lori Haak, and Paul
Oehme
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS.
Debbie Larson Planning Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong announced that the City Council meeting
scheduled for September 11, 2006 will be cancelled due to lack of items to consider.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom 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 August 14, 2006
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 14, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 15, 2006
b. Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition: Release from Development Contract and
Statement Regarding Claims.
c. Resolution #2006-62: 2007 Street Improvement Project No. 07-02: Approve Consultant
Contract.
d. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shorewood for Watermain
Interconnect.
f. Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing.
g. Thomas Schwartz, 7376 Bent Bow Trail: Approval of a Variance to Allow Structures
within the 40 foot Wetland Buffer Setback.
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
2
h. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street: Approval of Variance Request for Relief from the
30 foot Front Yard Setback Requirement for the Construction of an Existing Four Stall
Garage and Relief from the 1,000 square foot Detached Accessory Structure Restriction
for the RSF District.
i. Approve Quote for Recreation Center Hockey Rink Resurfacing.
j. Set Special Meeting Date, September 14, Joint meeting with Commissions.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Item 1(e), Approval of Conservation Easement for Wetland Mitigation Site OF-5, MnDot was
tabled per staff's request.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Ross Gullickson reviewed
the numbers from the Sheriff's Office Area Report, Area Citation List and Community Service
Officer Report for the month of July. Miscellaneous items included 2 public safety notices
regarding solicitor complaints and a suspicious incident in which an adult male approached a
young child asking the child to come over to a car. He reported on the activities involved with
National Night Out, Miracles for Mitch, Tour de Tonka and the use of a bait car to catch car
prowlers. Chief Greg Geske presented the report from the Fire Department.
ADOPTION OF SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator reviewed the adoption process and introduced Ron
Leaf from SEH who gave a short summary of the work done to address the comments received
from the public and water management organizations. Mayor Furlong asked about potential
funding options available with watershed districts and other agencies.
Resolution #2006-63: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approves the resolution adopting the Second Generation Surface
Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0.
BOULDER COVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM (RLM),
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN FOR A ONE, TWO AND
THREE UNIT TOWN HOME COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON PROPERTY NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 7, EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST 62ND STREET,
APPLICANT ROGER DERRICK, COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER COVE,
LLC.
Public Present:
Name Address
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
3
Cara Otto Otto Associates
Dan French Coldwell Banker Burnet
Roger Derrick Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC
Marc Hoffmann 6195 Strawberry Lane
Brenda Hugo 26110 Oak Leaf Trail
Jamee Tuttle 26245 Oak Leaf Trail
Julia Gagnon 26125 Oak Leaf Trail
Todd Wagner 26145 Oak Leaf Trail
Gwen & Wade Navratil 3751 West 62nd Street
Paul Steffens 26250 Oak Leaf Trail
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Paul
Oehme addressed issues dealing with drainage and traffic. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification
regarding the access onto Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street and clarification of the sizing of
the storm pond. If it is sized based upon the allowable impervious surface coverage for the
zoning or is it based upon the estimated impervious surface of this site plan. Councilwoman
Tjornhom asked for clarification of the materials being used on the outside façade and guest
parking. The applicant, Roger Derrick reviewed the type of buildings being proposed. Mayor
Furlong opened the meeting for public comment. Marcus Hoffmann, 6195 Strawberry Lane,
speaking on behalf of his constituents, addressed issues they feel will have an adverse effect on
their community as a result of the proposed Boulder Cove development, i.e. traffic and drainage.
Wade Navratil, 3751 West 62nd Street addressed the drainage issue that currently exists, traffic
concerns, buffer between medium density and single family, and because of the location between
two highly used park areas, that it would be a great site for single family development. Todd
Wagner, 26145 Oak Leaf Trail in Shorewood stated his key concern was the rezoning of the
property. Cara Otto with Otto Associates and staff addressed the issues brought up by the
residents. After council discussion and comments the following motions were made.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Case #06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for the Boulder Cove as
shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006, and revised July 25, 2006, subject to the
following condition:
1. Lot 22, Block 1, Boulder Cover shall remain under the Residential Single Family zoning
district.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for 39 lots and
1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006,
incorporating the Findings of Fact as attached, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staff review. The
revised calculations should include the entire area drained by the north ditch of Trunk
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
4
Highway 7 since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two existing
culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7.
2. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
3. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat approval.
4. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller must be designed by an engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota and requires a building permit.
5. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer extension
from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work
in right-of-way permit) and West 62nd Street must be restored.
6. Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility
plan.
7. The utility plan must show the existing drainage and utility easements on the Miller and
Navratil properties.
8. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller’s fence as a result of the
watermain installation.
9. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
10. 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.
11. The private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
12. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard
areas and bufferyards.
13. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or as close to
that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of
the grading limits prior to any construction.
14. All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within the
dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond.
15. No evergreens shall be planted in the front yards within a space less than 40 feet in width
between driveways.
16. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in order to
protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line.
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
5
17. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family dwelling,
$5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex.
18. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponds and storm water
conveyance features outside of the public ROW.
19. The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and shall
be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed (perforated
standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall be provided within
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
20. Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water basin
within 24 hours of outlet installation.
21. Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) shall be installed within 24 hours of
inlet installation. A detail shall be provided in the SWPPP.
22. The proposed rock construction entrance shall be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75 feet in
length with a filter fabric installed under the rock.
23. 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
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.
24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per week or as
conditions warrant.
25. The plans shall be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots and
multifamily lots.
26. At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are
estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of the per-acre
water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond.
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
6
27. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
28. Building Department conditions:
a. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota
State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these
requirements.
b. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an
automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not
constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the
floor area threshold.
c. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined
by the Building Official.
d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan for
review and approval prior to final plat of the property.
e. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and
proposed mitigation reports. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be
abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code.
f. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
g. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
h. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
i. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
j. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
k. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
7
29. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. 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.
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.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section
501.4.
d. 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.
e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
f. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
30. All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on lot 22, block 1,
shall be removed.
31. Lot 22, Block 1, shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%.
32. Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be modified to reflect the new layout of Outlot A.
33. A cross-access easement agreement shall be granted in favor of the property located at 3520
Highway 7.”
34. Work with the developer to resolve the back flow on the drain tile at the vicinity of the
French tile outlet.
35. Work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan Case #06-10 to construct four three-plexes as shown on the plans dated
received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three-
plexes.
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
8
2. The single family, two-plexes and three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and
floor plans dated received August 18, 2006.
3. The applicant shall submit two additional colors for the Hardie Board siding.
4. The applicant shall add a pitched element above each entryway to further add to the
articulation of the roof line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND
SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL CORRIDOR AND BLUFF
CREEK DRIVE, APPLICANT ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS.
Paul Oehme presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the amount of fill and possible other locations.
Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the hauling routes for truck traffic to the different sites.
Debbie Larson provided information from the Planning Commission's discussion. After council
discussion the following motions were made.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 3 (1560 Bluff
Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Zumbro River
Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Overland hauling must utilize the existing creek crossing for the Bluff Creek Drive
realignment.
2. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
3. Hours of operations are 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
4. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine whether
jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill. Any wetlands that
are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior to any work commencing
on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to include wetland impact, the applicant
shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around any ag/urban wetlands. 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 Council Summary - August 28, 2006
9
City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban
wetland buffer edges.
6. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the wetland
alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
7. 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
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.
8. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with Chanhassen
Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the specifications of
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck traffic will enter and exit
Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street
scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type inlet protection shall be installed in
accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of
the proposed project sites and maintained as needed. The construction plans shall be revised to
show the locations of the proposed silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet
protection and to include Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
9. 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), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive an amendment to their existing
NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk Highway 212 project from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a storm water pollution prevention plan for these
sites.
10. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and provide
additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock checks proposed
within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to installation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Summary - August 28, 2006
10
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council denies
Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill properties identified as Site
#2 located southwest of Bluff Creek Drive, south of the Hennepin County Regional Trail
Corridor, and north of the Bluff Creek Inn. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table action on Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 1 (1425
Bluff Creek Drive). All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
APPROVAL/CERTIFICATION OF MAXIMUM PROPOSED LEVY TO THE CARVER
COUNTY AUDITOR. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. After comments
by council the following motion was made.
Resolution #2006-64: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approve the Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2007 Budget and
Establishing Truth in Taxation Tax Levies for 2006, Collectible in 2007 in the amount of
$9,575,778. All voted in favor, except for Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt provided an update on the joint
meetings with City Council and commissioners on September 14th.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 28, 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, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Lori Haak, and Paul
Oehme
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS.
Debbie Larson Planning Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening. Welcome to everybody here in our council
chambers and those watching at home. We're glad that you joined us. I would ask at this time if
there are any modifications or amendments to the agenda. If not, we'll proceed with the agenda
that was distributed with the packet. Hearing none, we'll proceed in that manner. I'd like to
make one public announcement this evening. The regular City Council meeting scheduled for
Monday, September 11, 2006 will be cancelled due to lack of agenda items for the council to
consider. The next meeting will be on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in these
council chambers. The cancellation notice will be posted at City Hall, on the city's web site and
likely in the local paper as well. We apologize for any inconvenience that causes anyone.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom 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 August 14, 2006
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 14, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 15, 2006
b. Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition: Release from Development Contract and
Statement Regarding Claims.
c. Resolution #2006-62: 2007 Street Improvement Project No. 07-02: Approve Consultant
Contract.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
2
d. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shorewood for Watermain
Interconnect.
f. Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing.
g. Thomas Schwartz, 7376 Bent Bow Trail: Approval of a Variance to Allow Structures
within the 40 foot Wetland Buffer Setback.
h. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street: Approval of Variance Request for Relief from the
30 foot Front Yard Setback Requirement for the Construction of an Existing Four Stall
Garage and Relief from the 1,000 square foot Detached Accessory Structure Restriction
for the RSF District.
i. Approve Quote for Recreation Center Hockey Rink Resurfacing.
j. Set Special Meeting Date, September 14, Joint meeting with Commissions.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Item 1(e), Approval of Conservation Easement for Wetland Mitigation Site OF-5, MnDot was
tabled per staff's request.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Another month has
gone by. Pleasure to see everybody again. Sheriff's report, monthly statistics for the month of
July, 2006. There were 160 criminal calls for service last month, consisting of 80 Part I crimes
and 80 Part II crimes. Part I offenses for the month of July were broken down into the following.
We had 5 burglaries reported in July, which is an error from what was reported on the monthly
crime stat packet. The packet given out a report of 6 when again there was only 5. Of those 5, 2
were burglaries of garages and 3 were from businesses. One of the business burglaries was just
an attempt. Nothing was actually taken and an entry was not gained into that business. The
biggest increase that we saw in July was in theft reports with 68 reported in July, compared to 50
in June. Upon looking at the yearly stats for theft reports, I saw that there were 27 incidents
reported last July. Because of the rather large increase I did speak with our Crime Prevention
Specialist and was informed that last summer was an unusually slow summer crime wise. This
year was more standard in relation to calls, whether they be theft, damage to property, etc..
However, because they were a little high I did do a little bit more research and found out the
thefts were broken down into the following. There were 14 gas drive off's. 9 of the reported
thefts were unfounded, meaning that there was no basis for the actual theft. It was an unfounded
report, and there were 45 actual incidents of theft last month. There were also 6 vehicle thefts
reported last month. However through the course of research I learned that of the 6, only 2 were
actual vehicle thefts. The remaining 4 consisted of vehicles being repossessed, family members
using vehicles without the permission of the owners, so on and so forth. So again there were
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
3
actually only 2. Part II offenses remain fairly consistent from June to July. I still saw a rather
large number of property damage incidents with 31 property damage incidents reported in July.
Further research indicated 27 actual property damage incidents were actually had occurred. The
culprit for the increase were mailbox vandalisms. We had a streak of those that contributed to a
little bit of an increase with 8. 8 of those increasing our numbers. There were 1,191 non-
criminal calls for service last month, which compares to 1,469 last year, so we're down a little bit
but we were up 92 non-criminal calls from last month. So what all that boils down to is grand
totals, we had 1,351 calls for service last month. 349 traffic stops and 222 citations issued city
wide, and those were for traffic, boat and water, ordinance violations, all citations. 222. Also
last month we had 2 public safety notices go out that I sent out also in the council packets. One
was for a solicitor complaints as we were receiving large numbers of complaints due to solicitor
conduct and rudeness towards citizens when they were going door to door. As a follow up
measure to this, I did meet with the owner of one of the companies in town and relayed my
concerns to him and he seemed very supportive of those and since then we've had no complaints
from that particular company. However this last weekend we have had a couple more so I think
that there is another company doing business in Chan. We're following up as best we can with
those. Another notice was sent out regarding a suspicious incident in which an adult male
approached a young child asking the child to come over to a car. The child ran inside and told
his parents and then the person ended up driving away. Deputies did search the area within
moments but the suspect vehicle was not located. We suspect this to be an isolated incident and
do not know the intentions of the person. The intentions may have been innocent or otherwise.
We have had no other reports of similar conduct in the city but regardless we did send out a
notice to the public to use this as an opportunity for parents to stress to their children, or teach
their children what to do in case a stranger should approach them. National Night Out also
happened last month. It was a huge success thanks to the hard work and organization of our
Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth. Although we got a bit wet because of the weather, we
all had a really good time and enjoyed meeting with the various community members and
leaders. We really enjoyed it and had a good time. It was the posse, fire department, full time
staff. We had a real good time. Miracles for Mitch and the Tour de Tonka also happened last
month. There were over 900 participants between the two events and all went well. We had a
major road closure for Miracles for Mitch, having Powers Boulevard closed and the Tour de
Tonka was held on one of the most narrow and windy roads in the city up on Pleasant View. But
all went well. We had nothing but compliments regarding that. Lastly I wanted to share with the
council and those at home what we're doing to proactively seek the car prowlers that we've had
in the city. We've begun using a bait car in the city which is armed with an automatic alarm to
alert deputies via radio as soon as the car is tampered with. Deputies that are in the area and
monitoring this alarm will respond within moments and it's a proactive measure just to, we
placed it out in business districts, residential neighborhoods, and we bait it with valuable items
that a possible car prowler may want to put their hands on and as soon as the car is tampered
with, the alarm goes off and alerts us. We've also begun to use some undercover surveillance of
some neighborhoods and some possible suspected leads. With that, that's all that I have for the
month of July folks. I now turn it over to you for any questions, comments or concerns from the
council.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just want to commend you for how you're handling the solicitors
that come to the doors...for a long time and so thank you for meeting with the business leaders
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
4
and trying to get a handle on some of the people that won't leave your doorstep and…so thank
you.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: You're welcome.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No? Very good. Appreciate
the thorough report. Thank you.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Have a good evening folks.
Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske's here this evening. Good evening Chief.
Chief Greg Geske: Good evening Council, Mayor. Rather short report again tonight, which is
good. You see our numbers continue to be down. We did add 3 probationary fire fighters that
we took on. They started Fire Fighter I classes last week and they'll start doing Fire Fighter I,
Fire Fighter II. They go through a HAZMET ops class and then also take the First Responder
class or EMT class in the first year, so they'll be busy for the next year here taking those classes
and we're glad to have the additional 3 members on the department. Fire Prevention Week
planning has started. We'll have our open house on October 15th. I'll give you an update again
with times and such next council meeting, but we started planning for that already. Again our
biggest function that we have where we're able to meet the public in a nice atmosphere or
friendly atmosphere and give fire truck rides and such so we get pretty excited for it, and we
always have a good number of members that sign up for classes to teach the fire ed classes
during Fire Prevention Week too, so gearing up for that and getting excited for that. Ross
mentioned, we also participated in National Night Out. We had several people and 3 fire trucks
that we sent out so thankful for the people that took the night out to take the trucks out that night.
And we also participated in the Miracles for Mitch. We had a few scraped knees and such that
we had on a couple of sharp corners but other than that, we had no major injuries or anything that
we attended to so that was our primary was medical responses. Give out a few Band-Aids but
that was about it so. About all I have to report tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for the Chief? Things are going well?
No? Very good. Thank you.
Chief Greg Geske: Good night.
ADOPTION OF SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Lori Haak: Good evening Mayor Furlong and council members. As you are aware, November
of 2004 the City Council approved the contract with Short-Elliott-Hendrickson for the
completion of the Surface Water Management Plan update. Since then staff has been working
very hard with the help of the consultant and other organizations and members of the public to
address an updated plan that will really guide surface water management and the management of
our lakes, creeks and storm water ponds into the next decade really. This will actually be one
component of our updated comprehensive plan that the planning department, community
development department will be working on in the next, in the coming few years. The final step
in the Surface Water Management Plan update process is for the plan to receive approval from
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
5
the City Council. Upon that approval the plan will be printed and distributed. It looks right now
like this. It's a rather weighty document, and but it provides a wealth of information, both to
staff and to the public for our water resource management decisions. As a result of this, and kind
of in combination with this, the staff will be looking at the city's ordinances. Making sure those
do comply and reflect what the procedures that are set forth in the plan. Now the plan doesn't
prescribe any of those updates but it does suggest some areas that the city is currently lacking
and needs to really update it's strategies, but those ordinance updates will be provided to both the
Planning Commission and the City Council in the future. They're not part of this consideration
this evening. So with that, we do anticipate having those updates before the Planning
Commission and the City Council by December 31, 2006 so we can get those up and running.
So hopefully I will be back in front of you in the near future for that. With that, I'd like to turn it
over to Ron Leaf from SEH who will give you a short summary of exactly what's been going on
since I saw you last and since we've seen you last regarding some of the comments we've
received from the public and from some water management organizations.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Ron Leaf: Thank you Lori. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Pleasure to be here and to put
a close on this project that Lori mentioned has a wealth of information available in the plan itself
to guide future surface water management. And the last time we talked in oh, about March-April
timeframe as a joint Planning Commission/Council meeting, the plan was very draft at that point
and one of the things I'm going to go over here is just some of the comments that were received
from agencies. A number of comments were also received both from Planning Commission,
Council and staff. From the City of Chanhassen and those comments were also incorporated. So
the plan has really come a long ways since the last time you saw it or were given an overview of
it and that's why we're here tonight to…approval of the plan. So with that I will go over a brief
summary of some of the things that have taken place over the course of the project. Some of the
milestones include a total of 7 task force meetings taking place between August of 2005 and
February of 2006. Great input through that process. The task force members were very involved
and guided the development of the plan in a very significant way. The first draft was provided to
staff internally in January. That resulted in a second draft that was distributed to a number of
review agencies and that's where we focus our comments on the review agencies. Required
public hearing. Agency review period. We're past the agency review period. Actually it took a
little longer than 60 days because Minnehaha Creek requested an extension so that they could
more thoroughly review the plan and that was granted. So that brought us to responding to the
agency comments to gain approvals and that's what I'm going to touch mostly on tonight. Final
Planning Commission public meeting was held on August 15th and here we are tonight, August
28th to get your approval, adoption of the plan. And as Lori mentioned, following that step then,
the plan would be printed and final delivered in both paper and electronic formats for city staff
residents, developers to use on a day to day basis. So what were some of the watershed
organizations, state agency comments. Really broken down into several groups here. Carver
County, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council and the 3 watershed districts. And we'll go
here, you can't really see but again a really significant part of the comments and response process
was the internal comments from city staff. All the comments from staff were taken and
incorporated into the plan because it is the city's plan. It's not the plan of the agencies. It's not
the plan of the watershed district. It's really the city's plan… most important comments that
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
6
incorporate and that was done. Very good comments, as I mentioned earlier, to really guide the
planning project that has a lot of good information in it. With that…focus on the review
agencies. First, Carver County. Not a lot of comments but they did have a couple comments
related to better identifying and clarifying jurisdictional boundaries that relate to Carver County
versus the other watershed districts, and what that means is there's both a jurisdictional
boundaries and hydrologic boundaries. We presented the hydrologic boundaries in the plan but
really from a jurisdictional standpoint, it's a different boundary. If you think of it as water
doesn't know where a property line is. It's looking at the high and low points and so those two
boundaries are different based on parcels or based on the flow paths throughout the city. We
added a map. We have one map that has jurisdictional boundaries, and one map that has a
hydrologic boundaries. ISTS clarification really was just a simple comment related to does the
city's ISTS, individual sewage treatment systems ordinance comply with the county's
requirements? And the response was yes, it does when we did some review to ensure that that
was the case. Ultimately Carver County approved the plan on August 22nd so fairly recently but
Carver County did approve the plan. Second entity, Hennepin County. Did not receive
comments from them so it was in effect…approved by them not providing any comments. Also
could mean that it's a small part of Chanhassen and it's not that significant to them, but we did
not receive comments from Hennepin County. Metropolitan Council did provide some
comments, mostly suggestions and some comments were incorporated into the plan. Ultimately
what Met Council said was…providing an excellent framework to manage stormwater within the
city. They were very appreciative of what the plan does. Getting into the watershed districts, the
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District wanted to see some more detail on the water quality
in Rice Lake and that information was incorporated into the plan. We wanted a little more detail
on some of the things related to bank erosion in the lower parts, the southern parts of the city and
that information was also added to the plan. For example, erosion at some of the key…from
city's storm systems into the Lower Minnesota River watershed area. Also wanted some
clarification of the city's permitting process, as far as what the city was responsible for and what
was the responsibility of the watershed, and that again was incorporated. Again the watershed
district in this case approved the plan at their August 16th board meeting. Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District probably provided the most comprehensive and detailed comments and that
reflected the request for an extension in the comment period. We worked very closely with them
to address a number of comments, and I've just put 3 of them down as highlights of maybe some
of the more significant things. The first one, the McRAM's or Minnehaha Creek routine
assessment method for wetland identifications versus the MnRAM's, the Minnesota routine
assessment method for wetlands. Minnehaha Creek recognized that there were differences in
what our staff identified an appeal for some wetland areas versus what their assessments
identified. Relatively minor differences but Minnehaha Creek really wanted to see that the city
was going to adopt the McRAM's as a part of this plan update. And the city will do that. Has
two sets of data for that area of Minnehaha Creek but the city will in effect, as part of the
ordinance updates that Lori touched on, will adopt the McRAM's as a part of the ongoing
management practice for the city. So the city, they also commented that the city's wetland
ordinance must be as strict as Minnehaha Creek wetland standards for those wetlands, and again
suggested some language to be included into the wetland ordinance recommendations, which are
included in the plan appendix. Minnehaha Creek also had set some phosphorus loading limits
for lakes within their jurisdiction. For example, Minnewashta and Christmas Lake and the
response to that comment was, a little more effort to do some modeling and some calculations on
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
7
how that loading reduction is going to be achieved, and as a result some of the ponds that were
recommended were really pulled up higher into the priority system so that those ponds would
meet those expectations. For example, Minnehaha Creek said for Lake Minnewashta we want to
see a loading reduction of 7 pounds of phosphorus per year. I think that's generally what they
said, and so we were able to pull in for example 3 ponds that said, if the city incorporates these 3
ponds into the watershed within the next 3 to 5 years, then that load reduction requirement would
be met. So it gives them something concrete that if the city does 3 ponds. Also gives the city
something a little better to hang your hat on as far as we can achieve it if we do these 3 ponds as
a priority. And the city has obtained conditional approval from Minnehaha Creek of the plan.
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek also had some comments related to some use attainability analysis
for lakes within Chanhassen. They wanted to see more details. Even though their plan addresses
some of these things in great detail, the draft plan really just referenced their plan. They wanted
to see it actually cut and paste to this plan so it was incorporated. Pretty simple fix. They also
wanted a similar inclusion to the plan on stream classifications. Again just a cut and paste so
that it was within this plan instead of just incorporated by referenced. So then they also had
some comments about the Bluff Creek plan, which I think you're familiar with from some other
discussions about Bluff Creek in general. So that really summarizes the key comments. Not a
lot of really major comments from the watershed agencies, although it did take some time to get
through the comments and resolve some of the things that Minnehaha Creek. Want to touch just
briefly on one final thing, a key comment from council at the Planning Commission work
session. Not that you're going to be able to read this on the overhead but it is the plan that was
added to the table looking for, give us some projects. You've got a lot of recommendations in
the plan for some things but what are the top priorities? What should we really focus on in the
near term or really get some improvements within the city in the short term? And so we did that.
We looked through the plan again and pulled out 12 projects, a combination of updating
ordinances. Again as Lori mentioned, it was a pretty key thing to meet some of those Watershed
District requirements. They also felt…NPDES storm water funded program by updating
ordinances. And then some other efforts to look at some of the stream being protection areas at
storm system outlets. And then a series of ponds. We have about 7 priority pond projects that
should be done as the opportunity arises for, in many cases as part of some street reconstruction
projects that are already scheduled to take place over the next several years so, again a key piece
that was a comment that we heard from council to incorporate a little more detail on what
inground practices need to take place. So with that, I again just wanted to, thanks for the
opportunity to work with you. We appreciated working with staff and be happy to answer any
questions or comments you have at this point.
Lori Haak: Yeah just very quickly if I might. Again the request before council this evening is to
adopt the motion approving the resolution adopting the plan. That always sounds so difficult.
But with the things that we've presented we believe that this plan is ready to go and we're excited
to get it, it's recommendations implemented to improve the quality and just the overall function
of the water resources and infrastructure in Chanhassen. So with that, Ron and I would be more
than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions? I guess just a couple quick comments. One, appreciate
all the effort that went into this. It's a very weighty document, as you said, and I know that there
was a lot of time and effort by staff and SEH and with all the other agencies that provided
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
8
comments so our thanks and appreciation for that, because it needed to be done. Needed to be
updated and we appreciate all your efforts in doing that. Also appreciate the extra step to
identify and look for priorities to make this as much an action plan as it is just a collection of
comments but to turn that then into action so I think that's obviously the next step for us as a city
is to take the steps where we can. And I guess in you know, we got into a question and that is
one of funding. I know we have money set aside but is it your sense, I mean from the various
watershed districts, I know one watershed district in particular, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek I
think, if I've got that right. I forgot the acronym so had to say the words but I know they're doing
a number of, or some major projects in Chanhassen right now to help their watershed. I assume
with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, I know that they've looked at that. Are those
opportunities with working with watersheds to fund some of these priorities?
Lori Haak: Absolutely. As we move forward staff will be looking into those projects and where
possible trying to get our priorities to sync up a little bit better with their priorities. Sometimes
it's a little bit difficult because they do have larger areas, for example Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District goes all the way from I believe Mound all the way down to where the creek
enters into the Mississippi River. So it's quite a large area and we're you know jockeying for
funding with everyone else so, but where that's possible staff is certainly looking into that.
Mayor Furlong: Well it sounds like they took some interest in what we're doing here and
appreciate the efforts that you put together so hopefully they had an opportunity. Sir.
Ron Leaf: Can I just point out, Mr. Mayor, council that Lori's well familiar with this too. The
Clean Water Legacy Act dollars that have come from last year's legislative session are also
available to cities on a competitive basis, and the priority goes to those water bodies which are
listed as impaired. Chanhassen has some of those so at least there's a potential for some funding
opportunity there as well to help all those water bodies out that have impaired watershed.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Any other questions? No? Very good, thank you. Any comments or
discussion on this?
Councilman Peterson: No, I think you articulated my thoughts well Mr. Mayor. …now let's put
it to use.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good. There's a motion that the council approve the resolution adopting
the second generation surface water management plan. Is there a motion to that effect?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. All in favor. Any discussion on the motion before I
proceed?
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
9
Resolution #2006-63: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approves the resolution adopting the Second Generation Surface
Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0.
BOULDER COVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM (RLM),
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN FOR A ONE, TWO AND
THREE UNIT TOWN HOME COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON PROPERTY NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 7, EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST 62ND STREET,
APPLICANT ROGER DERRICK, COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER COVE,
LLC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cara Otto Otto Associates
Dan French Coldwell Banker Burnet
Roger Derrick Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC
Marc Hoffmann 6195 Strawberry Lane
Brenda Hugo 26110 Oak Leaf Trail
Jamee Tuttle 26245 Oak Leaf Trail
Julia Gagnon 26125 Oak Leaf Trail
Todd Wagner 26145 Oak Leaf Trail
Gwen & Wade Navratil 3751 West 62nd Street
Paul Steffens 26250 Oak Leaf Trail
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Good evening Honorable Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council. Just
going over the location of the site, it is located north of Highway 7, west of Church Road and
south of 62nd Street. It is also south of the city of Shorewood. This project contains multiple
applications. The first one being the rezoning of the property from Residential Single Family to
Residential Low Medium Density. This is the primary decision that the City Council has to
make. If the rezoning is approved, you can carry on with the subdivision and site plan request.
If you choose to deny the rezoning, the rest of the application is moot since the product the
applicant is proposing will not meet the residential single family district requirements. With that
said, the comprehensive plan guides this site for residential low density, which permits 1.2 to 4
units per acre. The applicant is requesting to rezone it to Residential Low Medium Density, and
with this specific project, this specific request, the density on the site is 2.8 units per acre. That's
the gross density, and 3.32 units per acre. That would be the net density after removing the street
or the right-of-way. They were still under the low density which is maximum of 4 units per acre.
Staff views this site as a classic case of a transition zone. It provides single family units,
duplexes next to the single family units that you have to the north of the site, and I think this will
show it better. Single family and duplexes along here. Wherever he has a buffer, we've
permitted the three plexes and then along Highway 7 you have more three plexes. There were
some questions raised regarding the hard surface coverage on this site. If it was rezoned to
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
10
RLM, this district allows for higher numbers, higher percentages of hard surface coverage
compared to our residential single family district that permits a maximum hard surface coverage
of 25%. What we did is we took each individual parcel and assumed the largest possible unit
that you can have on each of the single family, the duplexes, with exception of the middle unit of
the three plexes. Those, the size of those units is set and you can't really enlarge them or make
them any smaller than what you see on the plan here. With that assumption we also added a 20
foot wide driveway, a sidewalk to the front door of each unit, and a patio. So worst case scenario
for the entire project is 24.9%, which is comparable to a single family development as far as hard
surface coverage. The next request before the City Council is the subdivision. All of the lots in
this district meet the minimum requirements of area width and depth of the city code. All right-
of-way is being dedicated on the plat. Additional right-of-way for 62nd Street is also being
dedicated. Drainage and utility easements are also part of this application. There are 2 variances
attached to this subdivision. The first one being the length of the cul-de-sac and the second deals
with the building of a private street. Our ordinance requires any 2 homes that share a driveway
to go through the subdivision variance process. Both of those variances deal with safety issues
and our City Engineer Paul Oehme will be addressing those two issues later. As well as some
additional traffic and drainage issues. The third request deals with a site plan, and all three…are
required by city code to go through the site plan procedure. The applicant is proposing to utilize
Hardie board as one of the materials on the exterior as well as a variation of different types of
stone. In either case, whether it's the Hardie board or the stone, these elements would continue
along the entire façade rather than just be cut off at a, below a window or half way on an
elevation. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the
staff report and at this point if I may, I would like to turn it over to Paul Oehme to address some
issues dealing with drainage and traffic.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This application was received by staff I
think back in February of this year. When we received it we did have some concerns about
traffic and the drainage, and since then we've been working with the developer and their
engineers and we actually, the city staff, city did hire another outside engineering firm to
evaluate the ground water issues and drainage off the site too so, since then we've been working
through these issues and we think we've come up with a reasonable design that we think can
benefit some of the existing property owners in this area as well. I'd first like to touch on
drainage for the development. That was one of the biggest concerns that was raised at the public
hearing at the Planning Commission. This drawing here of the development shows existing
drainage patterns. The yellow areas, E1 and E2 currently drain to the north to the city of
Shorewood residents. The green area currently drains west, and this is again based on existing
topography and the red or pink area drains south of the Highway 5 ditch and to the MnDot right-
of-way. With the proposed development, this is the new drainage pattern. We have decreased
the amount of drainage area to the north…which is now shown in yellow. The area now in blue
is currently will be draining to the existing, to a proposed pond on the development. Treated and
in the area in pink again is in the MnDot right-of-way which really hasn't changed and the green
still flows to the west, and that mainly is captured again by the ditch. So where we are, we have
considered the existing property owners adjacent to the development. The, can I have the map or
the drawing? One of the biggest concerns for, especially the property owners to the north and to
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
11
the west was the ground water. Staff and the engineering team have come up with several
improvements that we think will help this current situation. The proposed improvements include
a French drain which is basically a drain tile wrapped in rock to help capture some existing
ground water in this area. This drain tile, or this French drain is proposed along the west
property line here… into the existing MnDot ditch out here. The property owners on the west,
the existing property owners on the west would have the opportunity to tie into that drain with
their sump pumps and we understand that there is a, there's a significant amount of sump pump
discharge on these properties and over…would have the opportunity to tie into those which
would be a city improvement or city infrastructure. To the north, there will be storm water catch
basins on the back yards here, and we are, have talked to the developer about making those more
of a drain tile situation as well to capture, try to capture some more drain, ground water in this
area. Make it perforated and try to capture as much drainage, ground water as possible in the
back yards here. Again all the impervious surface and all the development areas are, as much as
possible, will be treated in the proposed pond. The, let's see. One of the issues that was raised at
the Planning Commission public hearing was the current drainage south of Highway 5. We feel
that, staff feels that it's somewhat out of the scope of this project. We understand that there is an
existing drainage issue with that development just south of there. In the staff report we have
included the report from an engineering firm that gives 4 improvement opportunities.
Improvement options that staff is looking at incorporating into the 2007 CIP to address those
issues so we are looking and trying to make those improvements at this time as well. I'd like to
move onto traffic. Some of the issues regarding this development. Now the main issue that staff
has heard from the property owners was access to the site. Their request has been to include
another access onto Highway 7. Currently there is 2 access points. Maybe I can show you on
this drawing here. Currently 2 access points. One at the westerly part of the development and
one on the center part of the proposed development. There are 2 existing driveways that
currently access 7. As Sharmeen had indicated, we are trying to incorporate those access, or
eliminate those access points off of 7 with existing ones, for existing homes and bring those into
the development. I did hand out a current, an email that MnDot recently sent to us regarding
access and potential, request for additional access off of 7 by some of the property owners. We
have considered those requests. MnDot is the jurisdiction, jurisdictional party of Highway 7 so
they have the last say on what kind of access is provided for the development. Currently
Highway 7 is a high priority regional corridor and for example a right-in/right-out access, quarter
mile spacing would be required. And for full access MnDot requires a half mile spacing. This
exhibit shows current access points. This is the proposed development area right now. A
couple, this is where the existing property, the houses are currently located. For a quarter mile
spacing it really doesn't meet MnDot's requirements. Church Road, between Church Road and in
Shorewood Drive would be less than a quarter mile spacing that would be required so right-
in/right-out would not work, nor would a full access. Other developments that council has
approved in the past, which are just west of here. Boyer I believe is one and Hidden Creek
Meadows. We have eliminated access points along 7 as MnDot has required us to. So enough
with the access point on 7. The access off of 62 that is currently proposed, staff has reviewed
this access point currently shown here. We feel that this is the best access and sight line distance
location for this type of development. We feel that it's good sight lines both north and west to
accommodate the existing and proposed traffic in this area. One other item that was discussed
was cut through traffic to the north through Shorewood. Again referring back to this overall
map. The concern was that the proposed development, traffic would head into Shorewood off of
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
12
Strawberry Lane and potentially access off of Shorewood Oaks Drive to gain access off of, onto
7. Staff does not feel like that's a logical route because of the road there is a little bit narrow. It's
circuitous. It's actually a longer route to take than off of 62 and Church Road. So we feel that
that's the best access. We have been talking, staff has been talking with MnDot about gaining
the traffic signal at this intersection as well. We just had a recent conversation with them. Again
it does not currently meet MnDot's warrants for a signal but the more traffic at that intersection,
the more likelihood that in the future that intersection will meet warrants for a signal, so we are
working with MnDot and trying to encourage them, making sure that they look at this
intersection for future signals. The, staff did include traffic analysis to, from the townhouse
development to a single family development too and we did not find any significant amount of
traffic increases based upon the these two transportation engineering trip generation manual that
is currently the engineering standard for this type of destinations and…
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, when was the traffic study done? For the piece where you
collected, you guys collected actual information?
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Traffic piece or you used the standards book?
Paul Oehme: Just the standards book, and that's based upon national averages for townhome
type of units versus, and single family. Those are the numbers that we plugged into this analysis.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Paul Oehme: At this time if you have any questions about those issues or any other questions, I'd
be more than willing to try to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist, you jumped
ahead. Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom, any questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I have a couple. Paul, first with regard to traffic and maybe we can show the
colored map for the site plan, if we have that close by. Is that alignment of the road
perpendicular to West 62nd and in line with Strawberry or is it offset?
Paul Oehme: It's offset from Strawberry Lane. We wanted to try to gain as much sight distance
along Strawberry and 62nd as possible. And also we wanted to try to keep the road a little bit
away from existing properties here so it's not more or less a through street as well. It's part of a
stop condition here.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
13
Mayor Furlong: I guess that's my question. Typically where we see roads line up perpendicular
and in line with other roads. So that one looks like it's coming in at an angle, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, it's coming in at, like at an angle. It's not coming in in line with Strawberry
nor is it coming in line with 62nd Street. But we feel that that location gains as much sight
distance as possible for both 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With regard to the storm pond, and one of the questions raised,
I think was, and you addressed it Ms. Al-Jaff is impervious surface coverage and differences in
what was calculated tonight. Saw that information but when I was, in terms of sizing of the
storm pond here, is that sized based upon the allowable impervious surface coverage for the
zoning or is it based upon the estimated impervious surface of this site plan? Because the zoning
is higher allowable within the zoning is higher than what they're showing here, correct?
Paul Oehme: Actually the applicant's engineer can clarify that issue.
Cara Otto: Good evening. I'm Cara Schwann Otto with Otto Associates. What we originally
had was a house pad that was 80 feet deep by 40 wide. The buildings are actually quite smaller.
These are close to the 40 wide but more the 60 to 65 feet deep, so we were taking a larger
percentage of impervious to include, and because of some of the drainage issues and history that
we've found out since we started the project, we never really went back and recalculated that
based on the buildings they're proposing, just because it would be a conservation measure to
leave that. So to answer your question, the pond would be a conservative or larger size than
what is currently being proposed on the site plan. And the site plan is holding them to some
standards as far as what they need to do so, it is being covered in the larger pond.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my question, and that's, I appreciate that. What is allowed within
impervious coverage within the zoning? And you said, as I saw in the staff report, it's about 25%
or just under that's being calculated.
Cara Otto: With the proposed site.
Mayor Furlong: I exaggerated at 25.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: With the proposed plan it is 24.9. However, within this district, depending
upon whether it's a single, a duplex or a three plex, those numbers could potentially go up. The
percentages.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Percentage allowed or the actual?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Percentage allowed could potentially go up. However, the site plan that the
applicant is proposing is going to keep them under 25%.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
14
Mayor Furlong: And I think that's a safety check or balance there, and I guess I'm sorry Ms.
Otto, based upon your calculations, you said the pond will cover more than what's currently here,
which is the 24.9.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: About what impervious surface coverage would the pond cover?
Cara Otto: Well if you give me a calculator, maybe I can. I don't know that off hand but…an
idea.
Mayor Furlong: That'd be fine. That'd be fine. And while she's doing that, I guess, let me see if
I have anything else at this point. Otherwise we'll keep moving on. The variance request is one
of a cul-de-sac longer than ordinance allows.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the reason for that is, because there's no access to Highway 7, is that
correct? It's a restriction being placed on the property?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: By the City and by MnDot.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct, and we looked at all the different options. Property to the north is
completely developed so we have no access to the road to the north of the subject site. Access is
limited off of Highway 7 based upon MnDot's requirements. We really don't have any other
choice.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the private street variance, that, any private
street requires a variance, is that correct?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: And it was a request from the property owners. We received a call from her.
From the homeowner requesting that we talk to the developer and see if we can close off their
access onto Highway 7 and have them share a driveway or a private street. We contacted the
developer and they agreed to do so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And this plan, including the private street with the cul-de-sac takes 4
private accesses off Highway 7 right now? Is that right? Or 3.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct. Four. We're closing off 4 driveways off of 7.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
15
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. That's all the questions I have. How'd the calculator work?
Cara Otto: Well you put me on the spot but generally, it's about, what my plan tells us is about
20% more than what they're building. That probably equates to somewhere around 30, low 30's
percent for cumulative. So but the difference sort of between the building pads shown and the
buildings they're proposing is about a 20% decrease.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, and within the zoning district you said it varied by type of
structure. Number of units per structure.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And they range from 30 to 40?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: From 30 to, 34 single. 35 for a duplex and 50% for the three plex. The
middle, yes.
Mayor Furlong: The middle unit, okay. Okay. That's it. Any other questions at this time?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I had a thought. You showed, we saw a rendering of the building.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That building is going to be the three plex, the whole thing? Just
different modifications of it?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct. As well as, so basically what we're looking at is a difference
in the type of material that is used. The stone that is used on these garages versus this area. Staff
is also recommending that they add a pitched element above the roof leading to each entryway as
a way of defining the entrances into each one of those units. They're also using the Hardie
board, and there is a variation. I was talking to the applicant requesting more variation in the
colors and materials and this is what they came up with.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you think there's a need for, is there any visitor parking allotted?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: No. Each unit, this maintains a setback of 16, 30 feet and each driveway is
20 feet. They also have a public street. 60 foot right-of-way so there is plenty of parking in each
driveway. Very similar to a single family development. There's plenty of parking on the street
as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point for staff? If not, I know the applicant
is here. If there's anything you'd like to address to the council.
Roger Derrick: Good evening. My name is Roger Derrick. I'm representing Cottage
Homesteads tonight for the Boulder Cove development. I think the staff has really covered just
about everything I wanted to say except that, we've been building one level townhomes
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
16
throughout the state for the past 16 years and have built many developments. This one we're
really looking forward to because in working with Sharmeen and the planning department, we
think that we've got a beautiful building. We've never built this particular one before but it's got
the cement board. Doesn't have any vinyl. It's got stone. We're going to vary the colors of the
cement board and the stone very subtly. It's got a very high pitched roof. Some gables.
Concrete driveways. It's going to be very nice. And of course it's a cul-de-sac which you know
adds to the flavor I think of the neighborhood. And it's one level. I know that just in thinking
about townhouse developments, you know their thoughts have gone through people's minds.
We've got enough townhouse developments. We don't need any more, but this one being one
level, it really caters to the empty nester. The senior and what we found in the past, and in more
than 80% of everything we build is one level so we're really familiar with it. And almost
everybody comes from a very small area around the development because there are people that
want to sell the big house. They want a different lifestyle. They want to get rid of the stairs and
the bedrooms they're not using and get some usable space so, what happens is, they're going to
get people from the area. They're going to sell their single family house and they're going to
move to a maintenance free, one level development. We're excited about it and anxious to start.
Can I answer any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Questions. I guess just one for point of clarification. The materials and design
that you're showing here, I know our ordinance requires that for the three plexes, if I'm correct,
but it's your plan to use that for the duplexes and the single.
Roger Derrick: Oh yes, everything.
Mayor Furlong: So it will be consistent with what we've seen here this evening?
Roger Derrick: That's right, and the floorplans, we have two basic floorplans, and those will be
available in the single, twin or the triple. The only difference of course the middle unit of the
triple will definitely have the smaller plan because that's the only thing that fits there but the
other ones, you can either use either one. But the outside will be the same as what you've seen in
the rendering and will vary the materials with each building and the colors subtly so that when
you drive down the street, it's not going to be the same building repeated. In fact, not only will
that part be different but because you have the 1, 2 and 3, the masking is different too. And that's
something you don't notice consciously but subconsciously you do when you're driving down the
street.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Alright. We did have a public hearing at the Planning
Commission. I do appreciate staff's update of the report addressing the many questions that were
raised at the Planning Commission also. And then preparing responses to those. It was easier to
read in a summarized form like that with the details. Again, we did have a public hearing at the
Planning Commission. And there may be some people though that based upon either staff's
responses to questions raised or, I don't know that there were material changes between Planning
Commission and coming to the council in the plan but there was some additional information
prepared and included in the staff report based upon the Planning Commission public comments
so, if there's, if there are some limited comments by the public and like to make sure the council
is aware of before we start discussing it ourselves, I would certainly invite those parties to come
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
17
forward at this time. We'd like to keep the conversations again limited. We don't repeat at the
Planning Commission meetings. We've got copies of those comments and a number of residents
have sent letters and emails and made phone calls and stuff as well, but certainly invite people to
come forward at this time and provide comments as well.
Marcus Hoffmann: Thank you Mayor Furlong and members of the council. My name is Marcus
Hoffmann. I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane in Shorewood. I'd like to take this opportunity to
thank the council for allowing me to speak on behalf of my constituents and address real issues
that will have an adverse effect on our community as a result of the proposed Boulder Cove
development. Our platform is not that of anti development but more along the lines of cautious
development. We are appreciative to the Planning Commission for their efforts in addressing a
couple of our most serious concerns, mainly drainage and traffic. Having listened to the
proposal on August 1st, there continues to be a myriad of great concerns relating to this
development that need to be addressed. Our goal is to make you aware of these concerns to slow
the process enough that unnecessary losses are avoided and good compromises are made. In an
economy where dollars are tight and appropriations are limited, it is easy to be overly pro
development to bring a new tax base to supplement cash shortfalls. Our greatest concern
continues to be that of drainage. Our primary goal is to have the developer make some
concessions and take a more conservative approach to coming up with a suitable remedy. Rather
than trying to shoehorn too many units into a moderate parcel of land, ponding on the north end
of the development should alleviate unnecessary flooding to their neighbors in the Shorewood
Oaks development. This ponding would also reduce the stress of the water flow moving to the
sole drainage pond as set forth in the current site plan. The implementation of our proposal,
proposed ponding could most likely be done without the loss of any units by the developer.
Current plans for drainage have been addressed by several expert engineers but only minimal
standards are being... Two developers of Chanhassen addressed the drainage problems at the
Planning Commission meeting only to be overlooked and ignored. Errors made by engineers
have propagated flooding to the neighboring development south of Highway 7 at Minnewashta
Landings. Errors which have caused the flooding out of a beach on Lake Minnewashta 3 times
in the previous 8 years. The current drainage plans for this developer and his expert engineers
will only cause serious hardship to stress drains currently located beneath Highway 7. Current
drainage plans are also accounting for a clay liner to the sole drainage pond. Given the minimum
guidelines being met, this leaves the door open to additional flooding to newly constructed
townhomes and more importantly existing homes that have been part of the community for over
40 years. Our next concern is that of traffic. We are requesting that an accurate traffic analysis
be conducted after the school year commences. Minnewashta Elementary School utilizes West
62nd and Strawberry Lane as it's primary route for school staff and more importantly bus traffic.
…substantiations could not possibly account for the additional stress on our local roads. The
current TDI report, which is in the staff report, only accounts for neighborhood hypothetical's
and not actual traffic counts. The developer is proposing this townhome community be
predominantly senior living. However there will be no covenants to back up their intent. The
TDI report accounts for senior citizen traffic, which is not entirely accurate. The developer is
creating a land locked situation by giving concessions to the existing access points. I spoke
directly with the MnDot supervisor representing the Highway 7 corridor. Their intent is to
alleviate traffic by reducing access points along this route. However they cannot legally deny
access to any existing driveways. MnDot can also only comment on an approved proposal
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
18
submitted to them. At no point have they reviewed a building plan that incorporated the use of a
single access point on Highway 7. We would be more comfortable with their site plan if it
incorporated at minimum a right-in only entrance off Highway 7. This would reduce traffic
contributable to this development on our local, substandard roads by almost half. Let it be
known that it is the developer's intent to use their current access points to accommodate all of the
heavy equipment needed to bring the site to grade. Currently Church Road, West 62nd and
Strawberry Lane have weight restrictions that would not allow access to the development for this
purpose. Our community is very concerned about future assessments to the homeowners for
road upgrades as a direct result of the additional traffic. Again we are reasonable people with
reasonable concerns. We are asking the City Council members to take our concerns to heart and
take some time in considering development because once the development begins, it is
permanent. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sir.
Wade Navratil: Mayor Furlong, councilmen. My name is Wade Navratil. I live on 3751 West
62nd Street. The only address on West 62nd adjacent to this development and it lines up to about
2/3 of my property. If this was being developed as residential single family, I'd be here anyway
to address to you the drainage issue that is out there. There currently is a drainage pipe that is
running into the Highway 7 road ditch and it percolates up. So if this drainage plan is consistent
to hopefully alleviate that, that ditch will have to be excavated in order for that to happen
because we're there talking about draining the pond to. That pond drain will be higher than the
existing drain pipe, and as we all know water takes the path of least resistance so it will be
coming back towards me, up a drain pipe that has been there for 40 plus years. No one has been
out even to evaluate that drain pipe that is out there. And we have brought that up to staff before.
And to address the traffic, since I'm the only one that lives on West 62nd, next to that
development, it is very tough. It is a substandard road. Especially with school traffic. Number
two, Shorewood Oaks is a cut through. I use it myself. No matter what the computers say or
what people say about it being a longer distance or not. By the light being installed at
Smithtown Road, Highway 7 backs all the way up. I can hit Shorewood Oaks. I can go around.
I can be in my driveway inside of a minute as opposed to waiting in traffic for 5. So it is a very
good cut through. So it will increase the traffic by Marcus going on Strawberry. It will increase
the traffic on the school thoroughfare, and this development is inbetween two highly used city
parks. Cathcart and Freeman. And right up the road, up Strawberry at Minnewashta which is a
grade school. …that these are in there, it'd be very easy for single family to move in there, and it
would be great for young children because across the way you have a park. Across the other
way you have another park and they're both highly used Little League fields. And additionally,
in the 2020 plan to put the medium nomenclature on this development, I believe there has to be a
barrier of some sort of road, park or something in there. This development is surrounded by
single family everywhere. There's no townhouse around there without a barrier. And the only
barrier there is is a single road of cedar trees. There is no other park. There's no road. There's
nothing dividing it from the Shorewood residents as well as the Chan residents. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Quick question sir. A barrier? Help me understand.
Wade Navratil: No, a natural barrier, buffer zone.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
19
Mayor Furlong: A buffer zone, okay. Okay. No, I just wanted to clarify that I was
understanding your point. Thank you. Okay.
Todd Wagner: Mayor, council. Thanks for a little bit of time this evening. My name's Todd
Wagner. I live at 26145 Oak Leaf Trail in Shorewood. The key point I'd like to make, and it's
one that's easily lost in the discussion is the initial point that Sharmeen said that she's asking to
approve which is the initial rezoning of this property from Residential Single Family to a higher
density zoning. I sent a letter to I think all of you, or at least the Mayor and Sharmeen back in
March with that as my key point and question is to why does this property need to be rezoned.
Here I am sitting 4 months later and I still don't have an answer on why this property has to be
rezoned. Other than the fact that you had one developer come in with a very specific plan that
has many, many hours of engineering to deal with the stresses caused by that plan without
consideration of the fact that there's been a lot of other developers that have come in with similar
parcels nearby and have successfully and profitably put in single family homes. I think you
might find if you consider a single family development under the existing zoning, that a lot of the
stresses and issues that the engineers and Planning Commission have had to deal with become
less. Become less serious. So I think the point was made by Marcus that rushing to develop a
good plan that increases your tax base and helps out a developer, I think you've got to take a little
bit more time to think about are there other options for how you can develop this property. I'm
not against it being developed, but I think it could be developed very successfully as single
family homes just as all the surrounding areas are. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Appreciate those. …no I want to try to address these
questions so that's fine.
Cara Otto: Okay. Cara Otto again, Otto Associates. A couple of the items that I just did want
to mention regarding the drainage. One was the inclusion of a clay liner was mentioned. We did
look at that through staff and both the geotechnical engineer for the city that they had and also
the one that the consultants had did say that that had very little effect so we were not including
that because really it is clay out there right now so in effect we're doing just using the soil that is
out there. So that is not worsening any condition that is out there, so that was just a comment
that I wanted to make. The other thing I wanted to mention is MnDot does require a drainage
permit because of the drainage going into the county 7, or Highway 7 ditch. That has been
approved by the MnDot hydrologist. I think that's an important point based on the fact that they
do look at a lot of regional, the regional area. Finally I did want to mention, as far as stresses the
plan, whether really the stresses of this plan have nothing to do with the density. Whether they
come in with any sort of development, the drainage issues are an existing drainage problem that
is out there and we will have in effect the same sort of drainage issues that are for single family
with a pond or a bunch of apartment buildings because there is such a…and there is ground
water concerns. And then finally the other stress that, at least when people bring up what they
have for issues with this is the idea of the cul-de-sac and the MnDot not allowing access. We
spoke with MnDot from the very start of, well actually 20 months ago and yes, they cannot deny
a driveway but they will not allow a public street and we had given them several different
opportunities to allow a public street and that just is not allowed so, we have looked into those
extensively since January of 2005.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
20
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick clarification. You mentioned something about clay. Was
that the old tile during the, I think it was…
Cara Otto: I think the clay was regarding a clay liner in the pond.
Mayor Furlong: Right, that's what I thought.
Cara Otto: There was some discussion about some old clay drain tile that's not on this property
but that was possibly abandoned and maybe staff can, there's really no one that knows where it is
but it's lower than the elevation of this property. It's an existing condition not on this property
and so what we're doing is we're effectively taking our site. Draining it to a pond rather than
allowing any water to get towards the west. The other thing is the, there is a good deal of water
that goes to the west and down the ditch of Highway 7. The pond that we're proposing is
actually going to be discharged into the ditch and then head south, so there will be quite a bit of
discharge that is taken away from that western ditch. So some of the issues as far as backing up
and stuff, there will be less volume going to that ditch than there is currently in some of those
larger storms so there still will be, we're not saying that we're going to fix every problem that
there is but we're saying we recognize what the history is there and we're trying to handle our
water in an appropriate manner to not further effect that. And in fact we think we're going to
improve it by, especially some of the Shorewood people. I would like to be in Shorewood now
there because they really, we're really taking a lot of their drainage by having storm sewer up
there and not having a drain. That way they really right now that water has nowhere to go. They
do not have catch basins in their back yard in some of the low points. Now we're putting catch
basins on our site so that that can't get that way so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Excuse me. Some of the other issues raised, the issue of dealing
with storm water after it leaves the development. Issues across Highway 7 and is that something
that, that's an issue that may have been raised as part of this discussion but is that something that
the developer's responsible for here?
Paul Oehme: It's staff's perspective that it's an existing issue, as one of the property owners has
already addressed, or discussed. You know there is an existing drainage issue out there, yet there
will be under normal flows, some more water coming across Highway 7 into these existing
ponds there, but it is an existing condition. It's something that the City really needs to address
because it is more of a regional issue than just the local development issue.
Mayor Furlong: From I was reading, that would be something that the City would address
regardless of whether this development goes forward.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Because those are issues that have to be addressed.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
21
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. The issue of traffic I think was raised. Any other
comments or responses from the staff with regard to the comments we just heard? Some of them
were sent in our staff report but anything you'd like to comment or question follow up? Sure.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Navratil, is that correct? He had concerns that he stated about his
drainage issues on the property. And the fact that they weren't, they hadn't been addressed with
him. Does staff have any comment about that?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: There is a French drain that's being introduced along the westerly edge of this
overall site, and I don't know Paul, you might want to elaborate on that.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I think we're benefiting the westerly properties by including that French
drain in there as the developer's engineer had indicated. We anticipate there will be less runoff to
the west through that MnDot ditch so we don't feel that there'd be any significant impacts to the
existing drain tile that's already out there. So it's a private system. We don't have anything on
record on that. It was brought to our attention I think at the last, at the Planning Commission so
we really haven't had a good opportunity to review that existing drain tile that evidently that is
out there, but nevertheless we don't think it's an issue based upon the development that's being
proposed tonight.
Wade Navratil: Excuse me, may I address that?
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Wade Navratil: Can I see your drainage pond there? Or Sharmeen. This has been brought up
before. I live down here and I went down to city hall in June to drop this off. The drain tile that
was…ends right here in the corner. Their pond is going to drain right into that, so even if I
hooked into this French drain right here, it's just going to pump it in a nice big circle…because
this drain is lower right here on Highway 7 ditch than what the drain of the pond would be.
Cara Otto: The drain of the pond actually goes south.
Wade Navratil: It will flow this way.
Cara Otto: No. The outlet of the pond goes on this side. There will be, through here, it will go
through the culvert. So our outlet control structure will actually be directed into this ditch
system which will come south…
Wade Navratil: Are you going to install that culvert because I don't believe there's one.
Cara Otto: Our survey crew actually shot the ends of these culverts, and it's also showed on the
Minnewashta Landings ponding plan.
Wade Navratil: Because we were always told this was going to come down the road section.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
22
Cara Otto: Nope. The only, what will come down that road ditch would be further down the
line. The French drain will all run into that.
Wade Navratil: The French drain will come out right here.
Cara Otto: No, the French drain will come out along here and then discharge out here. And then
if there's emergency events, the emergency overflow may come into this ditch as well as the
discharge but the design of the pond is to have an outlet control structure that would discharge
into the ditch here and will come through the culvert under Highway 7.
Mayor Furlong: Okay?
Wade Navratil: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Mayor Furlong?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: One other issue that was raised by the property owner to the west dealt with
buffers. This is a low density residential development. Typically there isn't a buffer required by
ordinance. However when we reviewed this application we treated it the same as a medium
density development which requires a higher number of buffer or trees along property lines and
that was the standard we held it to. So they are providing more than a typical low density
residential development would.
Mayor Furlong: So there is a buffer there?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: There is a buffer.
Mayor Furlong: That would be the equivalent if this was a medium density development.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Even though it's low density.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: From an actual density standpoint. Okay.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: And that surrounds the entire site. Properties to the north along the highway
and properties to the west.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other follow up questions?
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
23
Councilman Peterson: Sharmeen one of the questions that came out of the Planning Commission
was, they cited 79 livable units. Where does that come from or is that just an error in numbers?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: I believe that, in that instance there was some miscalculation. There are a
total of 38 units that are proposed on this site.
Councilman Peterson: And is it accurate then, is the 24 accurate that single family would have
allowed 24?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Clarifications at this point. If not then, appreciate
everybody's comments and information. At this point I'd like to open it up for council discussion
on the matter before us and during the process of our discussion, points of interest, our thoughts
on some of the issues that have been raised tonight and earlier in the Planning Commission
process. Councilwoman Tjornhom or Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: You know I think that number one, I like the project. My question is, is it
the most appropriate for that space. You know it brings a type of housing stock into our
community that we don't have a lot of. And Councilwoman Tjornhom has talked about it a lot.
The single family townhouse side. And rezoning is a big deal to me. It always has. I mean
we've talked about it and the magic word, is there a compelling reason to rezone, and that's what
I looked at as I looked at the minutes of the Planning Commission and looked at what's in front
of us this evening and I really think that there is a compelling reason to rezone. I don't, you
know I read all of the issues that, that the neighbors had and you know I think that we can, I
think we can and have addressed them and we can probably continue to tweak them and make it
a better development for the neighbors also. So going back to my point, I do think there's a
compelling reason here because it brings a different housing stock to our community and to the
area that I think is an asset to the neighborhood. Some of the neighbors will disagree with that.
Some wouldn't disagree with it so, you know tonight I'm asked to rezone and you know I'm
comfortable with that. The access to, the access to Highway 7 I think is, you know we want to
make everybody understand that the less access to Highway 7 you know is to increase safety.
You know obviously you balance that against is there increased danger on the streets and getting
more traffic on the streets but the probability of accidents are certainly a lot more on Highway 7
than in a neighborhood. So is it more reasonable to put more traffic on the residential street than
trying to access in and out of Highway 7? Probably. So where I'm at is that I'm comfortable
with the development. I think it's well thought out. I think we tried to address as many of the
neighbors concerns as we can and I think we should move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I'll just give you my thoughts…issues, obviously the
neighbors have concerns with drainage issues but I think those are pre-existing. I don't think this
development has caused or would cause these issues…and made a plan to make sure that maybe
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
24
you have drier yards and streets, and I think that's a positive. Obviously a positive reason for
approving this development. And I'd be crazy if I said that this isn't what I want. What I would
want. I've always been preaching that I want to keep our residents that normally probably would
move to Eden Prairie or somewhere else that has this type of housing. I want to keep them here
and I think that we're giving them a chance to do that, and I think it fits in well with the
neighborhood. I go to Freeman Park frequently to drop off my child for baseball and I drive by a
neighborhood all the time that's single story, I don't know if they're townhouses or condos, what
they are but, so that type of housing is in the neighborhood, or in the area and actually when it
comes down to traffic counts, I think your traffic count was there are less cars going to be
coming from this type of residence rather than a single family neighborhood and so that also was
a positive thing. The long cul-de-sac, you know Highway 7's a risky highway to get on if you're
going east or west. No matter what direction it is. So I think the less probability of having
accidents you know, that also is a positive, a positive change for Highway 7 and so with that I
think all I can say is that I'll be voting to approve this tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist, thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: My comments would be similar to what's said before. Primarily with,
as I look for a compelling reason to rezone, I think this is a unique housing stock product that we
don't have much of now, and one that we've looked for opportunities to do and to provide. The
access on Highway 7, I look at that as a positive for taking some of those out of there. The
drainage I think is only, you know we look to control these sites and developments the best we
can to not affect everyone else but potential, you know can't fix all of it and it seems like this one
may actually help in the area as well so, for the reason of providing that you new housing stock
out there, I don't see it as a, it is a small step up in density but not one that's a major step and to
provide that stock of housing in the city, I'm willing to go ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I think I first learned of this development probably back in
January, perhaps even December of last year. This project was originally scheduled I believe to
come, if memory serves, to the Planning Commission early March timeframe. There were a
number of issues raised by neighboring property owners, through email and phone calls at the
time and I know I had conversations with the City Manager and development staff about those
issues and those issues were the same ones we heard tonight and at the Planning Commission. It
was traffic flow, storm water, and density. At the time, January-February timeframe earlier this
year, I encouraged staff to make sure that we had good answers, whatever those answers are.
Not directing staff to come up with answers that serve one purpose or another, but to answer the
questions that are being raised. Now we're sitting here at the end of August and the reason for
that is it took some time to get some answers, specifically on ground water. When it was first
proposed in January and February, the ground was frozen and we couldn't get information that
the engineers needed to make some valid calculations in terms of that. This area has high ground
water, that's clear. I think Councilwoman Tjornhom spoke about pre-existing condition, and that
was one of the things that took some time so, in terms of how this process has gone, some people
have commented this evening, and I know at the Planning Commission about slowing the
process down. I think we, the process has moved at a fair pace, and in fact in some cases
perhaps some people might think slow already, but the key is whether we're moving fast or slow,
are we getting the questions answered? And are we getting the information we need to make a
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
25
sound decision? With regard to the rezoning, which is the primary question before the council
this evening, this again while it is a rezoning, it is consistent with our comprehensive plan.
We're not, sometimes we get requests to change from our low density to high density or a large
lot to medium or other types of requests which may be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
This question is not. It is based upon the information I see. It is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that's important. Are there more units here than would be here if a
different type of low density development occurred? Yeah. There are, but that doesn't make it
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I think the issues of traffic that we've discussed and
have been raised, there have been some options including right-in only access off Highway 7. I
think my concern with that, and we could sit back and say well if MnDot doesn't let us, then
we're done. But just looking at the map and the site plan and there's been comments about the
traffic going up to the elementary school and others, by creating that we'd be just creating
another cut through opportunity I think as well through the neighborhood, and I don't think that's
fair to anyone. I think the more opportunity we have in our development process to concentrate
traffic at intersections that eventually will provide a safer crossing, such as the Church Road and
Minnewashta Parkway, Highway 7 intersection, we should do that. Because as soon as we can
get a stop light there, a safer access for everybody. Not only people on Highway 7 but also our
residents north and south of Highway 7. I say our residents. We're all neighbors. It's going to
be safer for everybody. So you know as we look at the issues, the stormwater issues, I think
those have been well thought out. I'm glad to hear, and we got some more information even this
evening that there seemed to be some misinformation about the flow of the water and I think
that's helpful that we were able to do that and address the resident's concern but hearing tonight
that the pond is actually over sized for the density that will be there, gives me some comfort as
well. And we have other issues. Earlier tonight we approved a comprehensive stormwater
management plan for the city and in there were a number of priorities, a number of issues around
the system in terms of managing stormwater in Chanhassen, that we know we need to address
and there are ways to do that and we heard about another one tonight, just south of Highway 7.
Not tonight but through this process, and that's what we need to do. When those are identified,
then we need to try to address them as best we can so, I think the overall, with regard to
rezoning, I think it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. I think it's a reasonable request
tonight and there is compelling reasons, I agree with earlier comments made in terms of this
property and I believe the development's a good one and I think that the issues that have been
raised have been addressed. Fairly, objectively and in a reasonable way and to the extent that it
actually in some cases, such as with the stormwater, I suspect will improve the stormwater that's
currently coming off of this property into neighboring properties, both north and west. It's my
understanding and expectations this will actually improve that so, with that I think I appreciate
everybody's involvement, especially the residents around this property for raising these issues
early on in the process so that they can be addressed and taking time throughout the process to
address them. And I appreciate, as I said, everybody's involvement. Any other thoughts or
comments? Concerns?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I'd just like to thank Sharmeen and Paul for the effort that they put into
this project. I challenge my staff constantly to look at alternatives to each development that
comes in, and that's why we have the variance process. Or the rezoning process in this case.
And to run it up a ladder to see you know is this a project that would be a project that would be
acceptable to this community. And it does provide an alternative housing to typically what
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
26
would be a single family. You have both single family, twin and townhome development here
that is under traditional planning standards a buffer from a major collector like 7 to single family.
So you know this is following typical planning standards and Sharmeen has done an excellent
job in working with the developer on this project and I think it's a great project for the city and I
just want to thank Sharmeen and her efforts on working on this.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any other thoughts or discussion? If not, the motions begin
on page 22 of the staff report or 47 of the electronic packet. Is there someone that would like to
make a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd move that the City Council approve Case 06-10 to rezone
12.99 acres of property zoned RSF into Residential Single Family. In addition I also make
recommendation the City Council approve preliminary plat for the subdivision, Case 06-10 for
Boulder Cove and 39 lots and one outlot shown on plans received July 7, 2006, subject to the
conditions set forth into the staff report, along with the Findings of Facts as attached.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all vote with
complete as far as attaching the Findings of Fact and we got everything in there with the
variances?
Roger Knutson: You know I hate it when he does that.
Councilman Peterson: It's only taken me about 18 years.
Mayor Furlong: After so many years he's finally learned. Hearing no discussion.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Case #06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for the Boulder Cove as
shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006, and revised July 25, 2006, subject to the
following condition:
1. Lot 22, Block 1, Boulder Cover shall remain under the Residential Single Family zoning
district.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for 39 lots and
1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006,
incorporating the Findings of Fact as attached, and subject to the following conditions:
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
27
1. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staff review. The
revised calculations should include the entire area drained by the north ditch of Trunk
Highway 7 since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two existing
culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7.
2. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
3. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat approval.
4. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller must be designed by an engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota and requires a building permit.
5. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer extension
from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work
in right-of-way permit) and West 62nd Street must be restored.
6. Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility
plan.
7. The utility plan must show the existing drainage and utility easements on the Miller and
Navratil properties.
8. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller’s fence as a result of the
watermain installation.
9. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
10. 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.
11. The private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
12. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard
areas and bufferyards.
13. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or as close to
that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of
the grading limits prior to any construction.
14. All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within the
dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond.
15. No evergreens shall be planted in the front yards within a space less than 40 feet in width
between driveways.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
28
16. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in order to
protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line.
17. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family dwelling,
$5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex.
18. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponds and storm water
conveyance features outside of the public ROW.
19. The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and shall
be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed (perforated
standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall be provided within
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
20. Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water basin
within 24 hours of outlet installation.
21. Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) shall be installed within 24 hours of
inlet installation. A detail shall be provided in the SWPPP.
22. The proposed rock construction entrance shall be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75 feet in
length with a filter fabric installed under the rock.
23. 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
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.
24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per week or as
conditions warrant.
25. The plans shall be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots and
multifamily lots.
26. At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are
estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of the per-acre
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
29
water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond.
27. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
28. Building Department conditions:
a. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota
State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these
requirements.
b. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an
automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not
constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the
floor area threshold.
c. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined
by the Building Official.
d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan for
review and approval prior to final plat of the property.
e. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and
proposed mitigation reports. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be
abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code.
f. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
g. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
h. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
i. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
j. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
30
k. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
29. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. 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.
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.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section
501.4.
d. 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.
e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
f. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
30. All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on lot 22, block 1,
shall be removed.
31. Lot 22, Block 1, shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%.
32. Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be modified to reflect the new layout of Outlot A.
33. A cross-access easement agreement shall be granted in favor of the property located at 3520
Highway 7.”
34. Work with the developer to resolve the back flow on the drain tile at the vicinity of the
French tile outlet.
35. Work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan Case #06-10 to construct four three-plexes as shown on the plans dated
received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006, with the following conditions:
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
31
1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three-
plexes.
2. The single family, two-plexes and three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and
floor plans dated received August 18, 2006.
3. The applicant shall submit two additional colors for the Hardie Board siding.
4. The applicant shall add a pitched element above each entryway to further add to the
articulation of the roof line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist: Did we do the site plan too?
Mayor Furlong: Did he get the site plan in there? I thought he did. You got all of them didn't
you?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: That's what I thought. Very good.
REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND
SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL CORRIDOR AND BLUFF
CREEK DRIVE, APPLICANT ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS.
Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. Zumbro River Constructors is, are the contractor
for the 212 improvements and they're looking at additional site disposal for excess material for
this project. They have discussed several opportunities with existing property owners out here
for disposal of excess material and they have requested that the City Council consider Interim
Use Permits for this grading. Staff has reviewed these applications. We are in favor of one site.
And the other two, we're requesting that the council consider denial. The sites are all located on
Bluff Creek Drive. One off of Hesse Farms Road and two off of Bluff Creek Drive as shown
here. The new 212 alignment is shown. The first I'd like to just go through each of these sites
real briefly. The first site is the site off of Hesse Farms Road.
Mayor Furlong: Is this Site #1 in the staff report? You're going to take them in order? Thank
you.
Paul Oehme: Yes, I'll try to do them in order.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
32
Paul Oehme: The actual site is just off of Bluff Creek Drive, like I said, by Hesse Farm Road,
right at the corner here. Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material are requested to be
brought to this site. Graded and approximately 22 feet of material will be placed in this location.
Currently the site is kind of a low lying area. There's existing I think water and fence line up
here. If this application is approved, several trees would have to be removed and either topsoil
taken off and stock piled and re-graded out here. The site would be restored, seeded I believe
and restored in that fashion. Two issues that the staff has concerns with. One is traffic along
Bluff Creek Drive. The other is still drainage. In the background we put together, the main issue
that was raised there was the access. The truck traffic on Bluff Creek Drive. If this application
was to move forward, we'd request that the items 1 through 9 be considered for approval as well.
With 35,000 cubic yards of material, we're estimating about 3,500 trips per truck. 3,500 truck
trips out here to deliver the material, which is fairly significant on Bluff Creek Drive. Bluff
Creek is a collector roadway. It does have the structural capacity to handle those type of trips.
However there would be some degradation associated with those trips. We would request that
access, if approved, be brought off on Hesse Farm Road and not off of Bluff Creek Drive since
that is an urban section, curb and gutter which potentially damage the street. The other issue is
drainage. Again this is kind of a low lying site. Most of the existing site does drain to kind of
the west, southwest area and more or less sits here. I don't believe there's a culvert underneath
West Farm Road to drain this area right now. The applicant has shown preliminary drainage
patterns in this area that do show the water running more or less existing location but they also
do show drainage off to the east into West Farm Road. The West Farm Road is a private drive.
However there is no culvert at this location, basically at Bluff Creek Drive and West Farm Road
to handle some of the drainage that the applicant is proposing to drainage way. Naturally this is
one of the higher points of the whole area as well. Another issue that we feel would negatively,
could potentially negatively affect the property owner to the west. This is low lying area. I
mentioned water does sit here from time to time. However this area is being built up. All the
drainage now is being forced on the adjacent property with no outlet, which does raise some
concerns for staff. I do not know if the property owner has discussed that with the adjacent
property owner but it's an issue that has been raised and staff continues to feel it is an important
issue that has not been addressed at this time. The second area, or interim use permit area is #2
in your background. It is off of Bluff Creek Drive. This area is proposed to place 90,000 cubic
yards of material into a relatively flat area. The area does slope generally to the south,
southwest. Bluff Creek Drive is the higher elevation area. Approximately 27 feet of fill would
be brought to the site. Kind of a cross sectional area. What potentially that will look like
looking from north to south, actually from, this is the south location and this is the north so the
area will be brought up significantly from it's current condition right now. It's a corn field but
there is an existing property just to the south of here, Bed and Breakfast that potentially could
receive some negative impacts because of the fill in this area. It's being proposed to be placed.
If council does think this application should move forward there are 9 items in the background
that staff would recommend you'd include in the application if it were to move forward. Again
drainage is an issue out here too. They are showing a tow ditch on their property, on the south
side of the, south side to handle drainage currently here, I'm showing the Bed and Breakfast right
here. There is no other structures that are out here. Another issue that was raised, a matter by
our water resource department is the Seminary Fen is potentially is a recharge area so those
issues should really be addressed before any material would be brought to the site. The third and
final site is the very north site, along Bluff Creek Drive. This site is proposed to be, this has
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
33
30,000 cubic yards of material brought in. Currently the topography does drain to the west
towards Bluff Creek Drive. With the 30,000 yards of material to be brought in, about 27 feet in
some areas. The grading would cross section would look similar to this. Again this being the
existing contours and the proposed grading is shown here so. Staff has looked at the drainage in
this area and traffic. There's a lot, for construction purposes, material be brought in. ZRC is
proposing to bring in this material, off Bluff Creek Boulevard so we will not have any
other…our collector roadway out here. Drainage wise we have looked at that again and we don't
see any potential negative effects because…so we are in support of approving this site 3. At this
time, if council has any questions, I stand to try to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, in looking, if I did the math, you've got 150,000 cubic yards you're
looking to put somewhere, right?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: And staff is supporting one site at 30,000.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So where's the other 120 going to go? Find another place to haul it to?
Paul Oehme: Find another place to haul it. The applicant can address that but they are hauling a
large volume of material off site. They are looking at other sites throughout the corridor to
deposit this material so any of these type of grading…by ZRC, they would have to go through
the same process as they're talking here tonight, unless they are wanting a corridor.
Councilman Lundquist: You call it an interim use permit but they don't ever intend to take that
material back out of there do they?
Paul Oehme: That's correct, no.
Councilman Peterson: Good point.
Councilman Lundquist: And is this typical as we do road projects to be doing this as you go
along or is this driven by some other change that came up with a design build project and these
are the details you hit when you get that far along?
Paul Oehme: These are the details that they have with this size of a project. I believe when we
started a project, there was approximately 2 million cubic yards of excess material that had to be
hauled off site, so it's in the best interest of both MnDot and the contractor to find sites close to
or at one of the corridors to deposit this material. They are building noise berms, or berms, sight
berms along the corridor currently right now to deposit some of this extra material too, so they
are looking for sites specifically along the 212 corridor and now we're getting into other areas off
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
34
the corridor in residential or private areas, or potentially that will benefit both the contractor and
the project.
Councilman Lundquist: Then the owners out there by the Hesse Farms, have you spoken, or
have you gotten feedback from them at all? We've got some from the bed and breakfast, gotten
feedback but the other site. Have you gotten any feedback from them at all?
Paul Oehme: Just in your background. I've not received any other feedback from the property
owners on Hesse Farms in the last week. If we would have received any additional comments,
we would have put them in your packet earlier or included them at this time.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. The two sites, the 90,000 cubic yard site next to the
fen, our biggest concern there is the impact on the fen itself and it is a very sensitive area and the
amount of fill going in there, you know not having an environmental study in front of us, that's a
question of concern. Whatever you do, activity in that area, we see red flags going up so that's
our number one concern there. As to the Hesse Farms site. We have not contacted the property
owners to let them know that we are, staff, recommending denial of that site which is contrary to
what the Planning Commission recommended. There is drainage concerns, that Paul mentioned
there, and the possibility of pushing water onto a neighboring property. Until those issues can be
resolved, staff is recommending denial of that site. And as to the site to the north, that one looks
as if we can accommodate them on that location.
Councilman Lundquist: So would it be staff's intention to look further at that other site on West
Farm Road and look at that more? Or would you say that they'll find another…
Todd Gerhardt: We'll work with ZRC like we have on all their projects. We've looked at a
variety of different berms along the corridor but you know, I give credit to Paul for going out
there today and checking this site out. Concerned where's this water going to go? It's flowing
one direction. They're showing it back flowing in another. Can that culvert handle it? Pushing
the water onto the neighbor. Better to address the issue now until the neighbor has a pond in his
back yard that he's never had before.
Councilman Lundquist: So better to address the issue by denial or address the issue by not
making a decision on that one and looking at it more?
Todd Gerhardt: You can deny it. Table that one and we'll work with ZRC on that site. There is
a benefit to the land owner to give him a more usable piece of property with the fill in there
versus the hole he has now. But we'll work with them. You know we're not trying to have then
push the dirt someplace else but we want to make sure that we know where the water's going and
that it can handle it.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Mr. Oehme, you mentioned the number of truck trips, and I
believe I wrote down accurate for the number 1 site is 3,500. So you're assuming about 10 cubic
yards per trip. Okay. And it's staff's recommendation that if that one was approved. I know
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
35
you're recommending denial but if it was approved, that the access to the site be made off West
Farm Road, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So you'd have trucks turning off. So the 3,500 is really 3,500 coming down
Bluff Creek and turning onto West Farm. Another 3,500 coming off West Farm onto Bluff
Creek.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So in terms of traffic impact you've got, it's a round trip. There's 3,500 round
trips as opposed to one ways.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Which would be 7,000. And I don't know if you mentioned it but in Site #2, am
I right that that's about 90,000 so for, so that would be 9,000 trips coming in and another 9,000
coming back onto Bluff Creek? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? For staff.
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is the applicant here this evening?
Applicant: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Anything you'd like to address to the council or comments?
Applicant: No, I appreciate you listening to the issue and if we do want to move forward with
the other site down there off of Farm Road, drainage issues until a later date.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant from council? No? Okay,
thank you. Appreciate you being here. Any questions or, we have a representative from the
Planning Commission here. Anything you'd like to address the council in terms of sense from
the Planning Commission what's different I think on one of the sites. Number 1…
Debbie Larson: Well one of the things.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you come on up to the microphone so we can get you on. Thanks
Debbie.
Debbie Larson: I'm Debbie Larson, Planning Commissioner. One of the issues that was
brought up, and I didn't hear it tonight was the timing of the trucks. The school bus. So I don't
know if that is something that needs to be discussed further or not. That's really.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I think that issue, and thanks for raising that. The issue was the
timing of this project would be, obviously with school starting next week, during the first part of
the school year and a number of weeks through September, October, November.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
36
Debbie Larson: More like during the day you know. Like the trucks…before buses or during
the day when the buses aren't running just because of the, you know and I don't know what age
groups are in those neighborhoods and what.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mr. Gerhardt, you have some information?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor, council members. In the Findings of Fact there's a summary
table that took into account the bus traffic, and the one that we're recommending was to have the
trucks Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. We thought that would be a 6 hour
window that they could haul when the buses and everybody could get to work without the
interruption.
Debbie Larson: So there's no kindergarten traffic that would be going on…
Todd Gerhardt: There may be in the afternoon. You know I guess we were assuming the middle
school, high school kids coming home but usually there's a noon hour in there and when the first
part of morning kindergarten…
Debbie Larson: And I don't know what the dynamics for that neighborhood are. Maybe it's not
even an issue but.
Todd Gerhardt: I'm sure there's a bus stop there. I don't know how many kids are there but that's
how we addressed it from a staff level was to give them a 6 hour window sort of the afternoon.
Stopping.
Debbie Larson: That's all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Since there's nobody else in the council chambers, I won't ask
for public comment. But bring it to council for discussion or other questions or comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would agree with staff on, the northern most site.
Mayor Furlong: Site #3.
Councilman Lundquist: It's close to the action so to speak, where things are going. The one at
the bottom of the hill, I think that one, there's a lot of reasons, not just the fen but a lot of
reasons, unfortunately happens to be the biggest one. So that will be a lot of dirt we'll have to
find a spot for I guess. The second one, or the other one on West Farm, I would I guess like to
see a table on that action and then let's look at it more if that's what we want to do for that. I am
pretty concerned about the traffic on Bluff Creek. I know it's a collector road but it's only a 30
miles per hour road and in addition to the Hesse Farms on the east and west side, they've also got
oh half a dozen or a dozen properties that access directly onto Bluff Creek as well, and that's a 30
miles per hour road. I know it's one that our deputies like to sit on as well and you know trucks
running on there as well. I'm not sure it's the best use but if you wanted to look at that more. If
we wanted…so I would be in favor of the northern and table the middle one and no to the south
one.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
37
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Are you saying?
Mayor Furlong: He'd be in favor of #3.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. That's…
Mayor Furlong: Opposed to #2. Site 2 in the staff report and open to other information on #1.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I think I'd ditto.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Peterson. Any other comments Councilwoman
Tjornhom?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. I think he said it all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Isn't there a movie about that where you aren't supposed to say ditto?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don't know.
Councilman Peterson: I won't ditto that. I'm comfortable with 3. 1 and 2, you know it seems as
though our roads would be used extensively and you know I don't know how much damage all
that many trucks, that much weight has on the roads but I know it's not, it's better not to do it
than just do it. I know that. That being said, the only people that are benefited by that are ZRC
and I can respect their request, and the landowner potentially. And the City isn't getting anything
out of the deal except roads that are deteriorating. So you know as far as 1, why? And we aren't
responsible for getting rid of the dirt. You know. I like to be helpful when we can, but it's
costing us. And it's going to cost the citizens something down the road. And I don't think we're
getting anything for it. So 3, yes. 1, 2, no.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And this is.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is worth discussing this. This dirt has to leave obviously. It has
to go somewhere so what route will it take?
Paul Oehme: Well not a city collector road or city street. Right now ZRC is required, their haul
route off of MnDot, trunk highways or country roads. So there's no truck hauling on city streets.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
38
Councilman Lundquist: A lot of that stuff's been going out Pioneer and then down Audubon out
to Shakopee.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, across the river. There's a dump right now.
Councilman Peterson: So I'd be interested to hear you guys' thoughts as it relates to you know,
what are we getting for it?
Councilman Lundquist: Well I don't disagree with you. But you know in the spirit of trying to
work with that, I mean I'm not a huge fan of having dump trucks driving up and down Bluff
Creek either… That road is yeah, it's built for, as a collector road. It can probably support it and
all that stuff but you know, I mean it's just not the road that I would envision having 7,000 trips
by dump trucks driving up and down it. No, but what I heard tonight is you know, if we want to
look at it more and see what the impacts on the drainage and some of the other stuff is, if the
contractor wants to look at it and staff wants to look at it, I'm willing to look at it. That doesn't
mean that when it comes back up I wouldn't say no anyway but at least willing to look at it in the
spirit of trying to find a place to put the dirt somewhere.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: With this issue I don't think that was, was that brought up in our
report. The wear and tear on the roads.
Mayor Furlong: I think traffic.
Paul Oehme: Traffic was the issue.
Mayor Furlong: Number of trips.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: In fact I think there was a request for some escrow funds as well. For possible
damage. And I guess my comments would be similar to, you know on number 2 and on number
3, I think we're all on agreement there. On number 3, that makes sense. It works. It takes, there
is no traffic. Any requested off of city streets that really don't, it doesn't fit. There's no storm
water drainage on neighboring property owners, so we're not creating some problems for
someone else who would benefit. I think we're all comfortable on number 3. Number 2. Yes,
the fen is in the proximity and when your, storm water drainage will be an issue there. I think
there's going to be an issue there as well to the property to the south and east. To the bed and
breakfast. If you look at those topography lines, they're going to build it up, and that's the way
it's going to go. It's going to go south and it's going to go east, and that's a significant change in
storm water drainage. And there, I mean 90,000 cubic yards. 9,000 trucks one way. 9,000 the
other way, and the topography of that land right off of just to the south of Bluff Creek falls off
pretty quickly so you're going to have trucks coming up the hill trying to get enough power to
make that turn, both coming in. Coming out. I just think it's going to mess up traffic
significantly, and that ultimately is my concern with number 1. The traffic counts. You know
with these number of trucks on that road, even if you're turning onto West Farm Road, you're
still going to have the trucks slowing down to a virtual stop or swinging out in front of the
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
39
oncoming traffic to get on there. Do the same thing coming back out because of the width of
Bluff Creek. It's just, they're going to have to use the whole width.
Councilman Lundquist: Well…
Mayor Furlong: And you know, we don't have control over West Farm but I don't know how
that road is going to handle it either, so. Really the drainage obviously is an issue. If they, if staff
can get comfortable with the drainage, I don't if that's going to do anything about the number of
trips, and I think that's a reasonable issue as a council to look at is where does the, I mean there's
a cost effect on the wear and tear on the roads, which Councilman Peterson appropriately raised.
There's also an indirect cost of just virtually shutting down that road with the staff report said
every 2 to 3 minutes in some cases. It would be, the road, traffic would be stopped for the trucks
to get in and out. I mean to do that for a number of weeks, I just think that's beyond a reasonable
request given the volume that they're bringing in. Number 3 works because it isn't affecting
traffic on any of our roads. Not creating any drainage problems to somebody else. So I think
number 1, or excuse me, number 2 and 3, we're all in agreement on that. I get back to number 1
and again, Councilman Lundquist to your point. If they want to work on it, I think they're
willing to do it and I always appreciate their willingness to do it, but I don't know if that's going
to get us over the traffic count in the end so. If there's a desire to, and I guess I would not be
opposed to tabling number 1 for the simple reason that Mr. Gerhardt said that they haven't
informed the property owner that staff was recommending against the Planning Commission. I
don't see anybody here. I'm surprised that they're not here but that to me would be the reason to
do it, just for fairness to them. To make sure they're aware of what we're doing. But at the same
time, and if they can work with some of the stormwater, and at least either confirm staff's fears
or alleviate it, but that's only one half of the concerns that I think I've heard tonight and that's the
truck traffic so. So I'd be comfortable tabling for the reason that we want to make sure that that
property owner knows what's happening and not wake up and, on Thursday morning and read it
in the paper. You know I think we can take action on numbers 2 and 3 tonight. If there's a
desire to table, great but I don't think that's going to change. I don't know what information's
going to change on number 1 but for just letting him know and making him aware. If that makes
sense to.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd like the record to show that the Planning Commission did
recommend sites 1 and 2. However they were not aware of the drainage concerns that Paul
addressed when it came to them so.
Mayor Furlong: Right. On site number 1. …1 and 3, yeah. But I think you're right. There was
no drainage, stormwater drainage issue really raised as far as that. But it's clearly an issue with
all the dirt they're bringing in. It's going to change the flow of the water so.
Debbie Larson: But number 2, the other thing that was…
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you come on up. Just so people at home can hear you.
Debbie Larson: The other one, the one by the Seminary Fen, the property owner adjacent to it
was very concerned about the trees. I guess it's a very natural area around her and she felt that
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
40
all the trees that would be knocked down, which is currently on the land where all the dirt would
go. She said it's somewhat of a nature area and it would basically destroy the view and a lot of
her property values because it is part of the view that they have from her bed and breakfast.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: And one of the other things staff talked about with this yesterday and today was,
or today was that putting that much dirt in there, it's going to potentially change the hydrology of
the fen area and not having an environmental review on that, you know that was another reason
why we wanted to stay out of that area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Let's take these site by site so that we can deal with them, and
let's just take them in reverse order. Is there a motion regarding number 3? Site number 3.
Councilman Peterson: I make a motion to approve as submitted by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Based on the findings of fact?
Councilman Peterson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I'm not even going to ask for a second then.
Councilman Peterson: Yes, I'll.
Mayor Furlong: Of course. Motion to approve.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on site number 3?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 3 (1560 Bluff
Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Zumbro River
Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Overland hauling must utilize the existing creek crossing for the Bluff Creek Drive
realignment.
2. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
3. Hours of operations are 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
4. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine whether
jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill. Any wetlands that
are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior to any work commencing
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
41
on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to include wetland impact, the applicant
shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around any ag/urban wetlands. 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. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban
wetland buffer edges.
6. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the wetland
alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
7. 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
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.
8. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with Chanhassen
Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the specifications of
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck traffic will enter and exit
Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street
scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type inlet protection shall be installed in
accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of
the proposed project sites and maintained as needed. The construction plans shall be revised to
show the locations of the proposed silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet
protection and to include Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
9. 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), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive an amendment to their existing
NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk Highway 212 project from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a storm water pollution prevention plan for these
sites.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
42
10. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and provide
additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock checks proposed
within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to installation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Number 2.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to deny, or deny Site number 2 as staff has pointed out in the
packet. And the Findings of Fact.
Mayor Furlong: I hear whispers from my left. Motion's been made to deny the request for Site
#2. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council denies
Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill properties identified as Site
#2 located southwest of Bluff Creek Drive, south of the Hennepin County Regional Trail
Corridor, and north of the Bluff Creek Inn. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. So Site #1. The issue here is potential more information.
Letting the resident know but again I guess there's a question, if there's a desire here to table for,
to our next meeting, I guess I would ask a question of staff. Do we have time with regard to the
permit to, are we either in the first 60 days or can we take another 60 days to table?
Roger Knutson: You can take another 60 days. Automatically.
Mayor Furlong: So our next meeting won't be until another 4 weeks, which is the end of
September. Will they still be, I know that's less than 60 days, if memory serves, but we're not
within that second 60 days yet.
Roger Knutson: Yeah we will be in 2 days. So in the next 2 days we have to send them a letter.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we'll take care of that if we proceed with the tabling. Staff will take
care of that letter to ensure the other 60 days and then I would suspect, question for staff. Will
they be able to bring it back by the end of September, in 4 weeks. And either have more
information on that and talk to the property owner.
Paul Oehme: We'll address both the drainage issues and the traffic issues…
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there a motion to table Site #1 to our next meeting?
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
43
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table #1.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table action on Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 1 (1425
Bluff Creek Drive). All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Todd Gerhardt: We'll get the letter out tomorrow.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Thank you.
APPROVAL/CERTIFICATION OF MAXIMUM PROPOSED LEVY TO THE CARVER
COUNTY AUDITOR.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council members. Staff is asking the City Council to adopt the
2007 preliminary tax levy of $9,575,778. This is a $220,000 levy increase from the 2006 budget.
This increase will reflect a zero impact on those property owners who did not see a levy increase
in 2007. The maximum levy between now and December 11th meeting, the City Council can
look at reducing that levy down, and with that staff recommends approval of the attached
resolution.
Councilman Peterson: Chokes you up doesn't it?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I wasn't ready for this one.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. This is an item that we've discussed at a few of our work sessions.
Received some preliminary information from the staff with regard to the anticipated budget for
next year and also information on how the City's performing financially during this year and I
guess at this point, again we're required by law to establish a preliminary budget prior to
September 15th. This will be our last meeting prior to that time so that's why we're taking it up
now but I think we've made very good progress, even the last month or two in terms of the
council understanding the staff's position and request and issues so at this point I will open it up
for any questions to staff. If there are any points of clarification. Otherwise we'll proceed with
our discussion. Thoughts and comments.
Councilman Peterson: I'm just pleased that the citizens have enough confidence in us tonight
that the chambers are empty and I think that to me does say a lot about the trust they have in staff
and us to deliver in what we've been trying to do over the years and we've been successful and
here's another year that we're going to have zero percent and I'm proud of that, as I assume you
all are. You've done great work, we have and I'm looking forward to another good year.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
44
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I can't say ditto again? You know what, I look forward to the next
couple meetings where we really spend it with staff and go over budgets and find out what their
needs are and work together and make sure our city is run well as far as public safety goes and
our roads are, make sure they're, there's some planning and fore thought with that, and just the
whole figuring out how we can run our city as efficiently as we can.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I think I'm going to be the, like Mr. Peterson was in the last tabling
thing, and that's to be the lone nay but. Like Craig said, I think it's a good thing to be sitting, and
as we discussed in the work session, to be talking about a zero percent increase on the tax burden
but I think we've got some room to lean into it a little bit yet and there's a lot of things that we
can do, pavement management and other things as we discussed that I think we've got a couple
of easy ones out there that we can look at. As difficult as it is to say I would vote against a zero
percent tax increase, that's only because I think we've got room to lean into it and get it lower
than that now. And I understand the…and we've got nowhere to go but down. We can't raise it
up but we can certainly take it down. And so at the very least, I mean that's a wonderful thing.
But being as we've got room to go, I think I would have liked to have seen that overall, and I
think Todd and staff and everyone has done a nice job of putting this levy together and it
continues to be the fourth year in a row here of a well done process and not something that we're
all not proud of.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I think with regards to some of the thoughts you just
mentioned. It was amazing, perhaps not so amazing but it is certainly enjoyable to see how
expectations have changed in terms of adopting levies, whether preliminary or final. In 2004 we
had a discussion about where to put the preliminary levy and where we ended up and we ended
up I know even lower than what we had hoped to do with the preliminary levy and in fact that
was the first year that we adopted a zero change in the levy. Whether we get there this year or
not, I don't know. I agree with Councilman Lundquist that there appears to be some easy…with
regards to some of the numbers already and I too, with Councilwoman Tjornhom will look
forward to working with staff as we have done to really understand what the needs are, and to
manage both the property tax policy as a council with staff and the spending policy. Knowing
that they're related but making sure that we manage both sides as well as we can. As was
mentioned here, we are the fourth year in a row, at this point adopting a preliminary levy that at
the most people will know their taxes aren't going up, and they might be going down. And I
know that there aren't a lot of cities in Minnesota that can say that. It's great to be a part of one
where we can say that, and I think a lot of credit goes to our staff and to the council and how all
of us have worked well together over the years to adopt good long range financial planning tools
with the financial planning process and to set expectations for ourselves of where we will be
overall, which makes it a lot easier on staff to manage the business side of the city. Even though
we're looking at you know a zero change, we're still looking at an operating budget that's
approaching $10 million dollars. I mean that's, there's a business aspect to running the city and
the staff does a good job of that and I think we've been able to do a very good job as well.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
45
Really change in expectations. To Councilman Peterson's point, you know as we sit here in
empty council chambers, with something that's as significant as what the property taxes will be
next year, I think that it's nice to see how expectations have changed from where they were
before so. I will be supporting this because we need to support and adopt a levy prior to
September 15th and I think that clearly this is all good news. Could it be better? Perhaps, and
we're going to work hard to make it as good as it can be, but for the third year in a row to be
adopting a fourth year, to be adopting a levy that is flat or below, that's great news. That's great
news so, any other thoughts or comments?
Todd Gerhardt: Now that I have my composure here, I just want to make sure that the public
knows about the December 4th Truth in Taxation date.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: That's when the public can come in and review the budget with my staff. We
make a formal presentation that will be aired over the public access, and then after that meeting
the City Council will consider December 11th meeting final adoption of the proposed 2007
budget. Again, right now we are establishing the preliminary tax levy of $9,575,778. The City
Council can reduce that number between now and the December 11th meeting so we'll probably
have 4 or 5 department head meetings with the City Council in a work session to discuss the
proposed levy increase from last year's budget and make recommendations at the December 11th
meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any follow up questions? Comments. If not, there was a
resolution included in our packet. Is there a motion to adopt that resolution?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the resolution to adopt it setting the
preliminary levy?
Resolution #2006-64: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approve the Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2007 Budget and
Establishing Truth in Taxation Tax Levies for 2006, Collectible in 2007 in the amount of
$9,575,778. All voted in favor, except for Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: Motion prevails. Very good, thank you. And thank you everyone. We've got a
lot of work ahead of ourselves but there's already been a lot of work done and we appreciate
everyone's efforts.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
46
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Just want to make sure that everybody saw, we set the date of September 14th
for a joint meeting with the commissions. That will start at 5:30 and should conclude by 8:00.
And pretty quiet weekend. And really nothing last week.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Todd, when can we interview again for the Planning Commission?
Todd Gerhardt: I believe we would do that in our first meeting in September. We'll schedule
that at a work session, and then you can consider adoption at that meeting. I think the Planning
Commission has 2 applicants. One that you've already interviewed, so you'll probably only have
one to interview, is the last I heard.
Mayor Furlong: And those applications are open, or are being accepted through the end of the
month, is that correct? So if other residents are interested, call City Hall and they'll get put in
touch with someone who can explain the position and the duties of a member of the Planning
Commission. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Council, when do filings open? Tomorrow?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: And close on September 12th.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Comments? None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, Kevin
Dillon, and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Lori Haak, Water Resources
Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
ADOPTION OF SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item and outlined the schedule for review and
adoption of the plan. She introduced Erin Krueger with SEH who reviewed the public comment
process. Commissioner Papke asked staff to address Todd Hoffman's comment regarding
priorities listing Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen over the city's recreational lakes.
Chairman McDonald asked staff to comment on if this document was creating a problem with
standards between the City and other governmental agencies. After clarifying that the public
hearing had been closed at the May 2nd meeting, Chairman McDonald opened the meeting for
public comments. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive had a question on the discrepancy between
the Lake Riley-Purgatory Creek District and their ideas on Bluff Creek as opposed to
Chanhassen's. Chairman McDonald closed the public comments. Commissioner Papke asked
staff to explain the milestone list for completion of the plan. After commission comments, the
following motion was made.
Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the City of Chanhassen's Second Generation Surface Water Management
Plan as revised. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to
0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20,
ZONING, CHANHASSEN CITY CODE.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on Chapter 18, Subdivisions. Commissioner Keefe
asked for clarification of Section 18-40 4(d) regarding maintenance and repair of retaining walls.
Planning Commission Summary - August 15, 2006
2
Commissioner Papke asked for clarification when RLM requirements are applied. Bob
Generous presented the staff report on Chapter 20, Zoning. Chairman McDonald and
Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification of calling out the Bluff Creek Overlay District
specifically in the Intent Section of Section 20-641 regarding the RLM district. The commission
discussed the terminology associated with clustered housing or concentrated housing and
protecting environmentally sensitive lands not already protected by wetland. Under Section 20-
1265, General location restrictions, Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on locating signs
and suggested inserting a diagram in the code to explain the intent. Chairman McDonald opened
the public hearing. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive asked for clarification on Section 18-39
and the reason why the City wants to prepare the list of property owners versus previously the
mailing list was certified by an Abstract company. She asked for clarification of the sentence
where the Community Development Director may require an expanding mailing list for sites
fronting on the lake shore when the development would be visible over a larger area. She asked
that a stipulation be included that all lake owners get mailed notification for developments
occurring on their lakes. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked for clarification of Section 18-
40(f) regarding maintenance of retaining walls across property lines; Section 18-57, the chart;
Section 18-57(p), private streets; Section 20-641, Intent; and Section 20-1265, General location
restrictions. Janet Paulsen also asked about standards for turn arounds on private streets in
Section 18-57. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
attached ordinances amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code as
amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 1, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 15, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, Kevin
Dillon, and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Lori Haak, Water Resources
Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
ADOPTION OF SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item and outlined the schedule for review and
adoption of the plan. She introduced Erin Krueger with SEH who reviewed the public comment
process.
Erin Krueger: Hi, as Lori said I'm Erin Krueger with SEH and I'm just going to go through some
of the comments that we received. The City has four watershed districts, as you know, that each
reviewed the plan and it was the Carver County WMO, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
Riley-Purgatory Creek, or Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek and the Lower Minnesota River
Watershed District, and then we also sent a copy of the plan to Hennepin County and the
Metropolitan Council for their review and any input. We received some comments from Carver
County. They wished that we adjust the jurisdictional boundaries of the watershed, which we
did that for all the watershed districts, and that's reflected in this plan. They wanted some
clarification on ISTS and who has the best information, which is Carver County and the city's
ordinance up to speed with their ordinance. And then they, Carver County staff is
recommending approval by the County Board and they are meeting next Tuesday, so then we
will receive in writing formal approval from them. We didn't received any comments from
Hennepin County, and kind of the basis of the comments from Met Council is they said the City,
it was an excellent framework to manage storm water in the city. Some of the comments you
received from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District. They wanted us to add Rice Lake
to the lake study and discuss the water quality, and that has been added, and then they just
wanted us to address bank erosion in their jurisdiction and then the city's permitting process,
which that will be included in the city's ordinances. And they're also recommending plan
approval for their meeting tomorrow evening. Excerpts from Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District, and they had a couple of concerns with the city's plan that we were able to work
through. They did a wetland inventory of their district and they asked the city to incorporate
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
2
their data in with the City's data which the City is going to do. And then once the ordinance
approval goes through, just need to make sure that the standards are in accordance with their
standards, and they, the third thing is that they've got phosphorous limits for lakes Minnewashta
and Christmas Lake and in the plan the City already has a prioritized list of projects in those
watersheds and as long as they do those projects or meet those standards, and the City has
obtained conditional approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also. And then the
last agency is the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, and their main comments
were they just wanted us to add some more information from their plan about the lakes in
Chanhassen and then the stream classifications, and then I know the City has been working with
them on a management plan for Bluff Creek.
Haak: I think staff was very pleased at their relatively little discrepancy we had between our
plan, our revised plan and the other plans that have jurisdiction within the city so we were really
pleased to see the comments that came back. There were no really glaring errors or omissions
that we found, and things were able to be resolved relatively easy and I think as you look through
the agency comment as well as our responses, you'll see that to be the case so we feel that this is
a real good plan and it's definitely putting us right in the middle of water resource management
for the next 12 years or so. At this time I invite the Planning Commission to continue to review
the comments received from the public and the responses that were provided by SEH in
combination with city staff, and upon review of the comment and responses, staff recommends
the Planning Commission adopts the motion as stated in your packet, which is recommendation
that the City Council approve the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan as
revised. With that I'd be happy to take any questions you might have.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Want to start?
Papke: Yeah, the one that kind of stood out as I was reading through the comments the other
night here were the comments from Todd Hoffman. He had a concern about priorities. We had
labeled Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen as the crown jewels. All that kind of good stuff
and he seemed to have a concern that the heavily used lakes, Minnewashta, Lucy, Lake Ann,
Lotus, Lake Susan, Riley really provide a lot more value than those things. Do you, since Todd
is obviously the parks director, he's in a pretty good position to make that judgment. What are
your thoughts about the priorities as we laid them out? Obviously we put up Seminary Fen,
Bluff Creek at the pinnacle here. There aren't a lot of people who go swimming in Assumption
Creek every day and go tromping through Seminary Fen. Comments? Thoughts?
Haak: Absolutely. That's something that I thought about as soon as I read that comment, but
having been privy to the discussions of the task force and knowing the regulatory requirements
that are set on those two specific resources, our solution to that comment was actually to keep the
crown jewel language in the task force summary but remove it from the remainder of the plan. I
don't know if you took a close look at this first version of the plan but that was really carried
through the remainder of the plan and certainly we wanted to be sensitive to those resources
because they are some of the most widely used resources and most residents in Chanhassen don't
necessarily know anything about Assumption Creek or Seminary Fen, and so that was our
resolution of that still understanding that those are definitely very valuable water bodies, but
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
3
understanding that the fen and the trout stream do have special authority or special protection
under Minnesota State law and needing to really keep that so.
Papke: Okay. So just to summarize what I heard, as a result of this we, you know removed
some of the sort of value laden terminology in the body of the report. Kept it at the end and
really didn't change any of the priorities that we had laid out. We felt that those were still
correctly aligned.
Haak: That's correct.
Papke: Okay. That's all I had.
McDonald: Okay.
Dillon: No comments or questions at this time.
McDonald: Debbie, any questions? Mark? No? I guess the only thing I had, I also picked up
on what Todd Hoffman had said, and whereas throughout the rest of the report it seems that you
addressed all the comments that everyone had made and I just didn't see anything there and I
guess I felt that that was missing because I did feel he raised a number of good points that I
hadn't seen debated before or brought before us and I was just wondering what the resolution
was. I think you asked about the priority of water resources that there was a discussion about
that. The other thing that I guess, and you may have touched upon this that I was concerned
about was, yeah it looks as though Minnehaha Creek, the watershed district there is probably
more, or provided more comments than anyone else. That seemed to get down to a lot of details
about the differences between maybe what we're looking at for watershed and what they're
looking at, and I think you touched upon this but my question is, going by what our standards
are, had we created a problem, especially on Christmas Lake and a couple of these shared
resources where our standards are lower than their's and we're creating a problem for ourselves
as far as between governmental agencies?
Haak: Well to date the City has retained permitting authority within the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District for a number of areas, including wetlands and storm water and things like
that. Our intent with this plan was to retain that permitting authority, and there has been actually
some fundamental differences of opinion with regard to the city's strategy and it's strategy that
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would like us to take with water resource management. So
there is in fact some of that conflict. What I think we've been able to do is, in most cases we've
been able to resolve that by including small changes to our plan and things of that nature. The
other thing that the commissioner should know is that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
is actually in the process of updating their plan so they're in transition as well to a third
generation plan, and so one of the results of that would be updating this to reflect their third
generation plan. But we've really done, I think what we needed to do. Try to eliminate as much
duplication as possible because with water resources management there is indeed that overlap, so
I think at this point Minnehaha Creek is satisfied with the way those things have been resolved
and we're going to continue to work for that.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
4
McDonald: Okay. And would the same thing be true Rice Marsh Lake I believe in the southern
part of the city that I think that's shared by Eden Prairie also.
Haak: Right. Basically the watershed district takes a look at all those resources, and that would
be Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, and as long as it's consistent with their plan
it would then also be consistent with Eden Prairie's plan.
McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Other than that just make a comment. You've
done an excellent job in all of this and I appreciate your effort and everything. I know it couldn't
have been easy. Thank you. Now, are we still, as I recall from the last time we did stay any
public comments so we're still open to public comment, aren't we?
Haak: Actually at the May 2nd meeting you closed the public hearing.
McDonald: We closed, okay.
Generous: It would be up to you if you wanted to take any more comment.
McDonald: I just wanted to make sure that we had. With that I would ask, are you all here to
comment on the watershed plan or the next agenda item?
Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I just had a question on the discrepancy
between the Lake Riley-Purgatory Creek district and their ideas on Bluff Creek as opposed to
Chanhassen's. How was that resolved.
McDonald: I think that's part of what I asked Lori and I believe that we did resolve that.
Janet Paulsen: That was Lakeville that you were talking about?
McDonald: Well but it also included the Bluff Creek-Riley-Purgatory Watershed District, which
takes care of all that, or explains so that it would include everything and that was the point of my
question was to ask, are those things being resolved and if so, how.
Janet Paulsen: But he specified, Conrad Fiskness specified Bluff Creek and I was just
wondering.
Papke: Was there a specific discrepancy that you.
Janet Paulsen: He didn't list the discrepancy in the letter. I was wondering, because I noticed the
discrepancy myself. That's all.
McDonald: Is that being addressed? Would you comment to that Lori?
Haak: That is actually a separate process. It's complicated. The City has a separate Bluff Creek
Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. That was adopted in 1996. As a result of that,
the Watershed District actually did it's own study and there are some discrepancies between the
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
5
City's plan, that Bluff Creek, specific Bluff Creek plan and the Watershed District's version of
the plan. We're actively trying to resolve those. We actually have a joint meeting scheduled
between the district board and the City Council. I believe that's for November, where we'll be
discussing the differences in greater detail, but it really is the opinion of staff that this plan
cannot fully encompass all of that. That that's best handled in a separate very specific plan.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Okay seeing no one
else get up, I will close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up to the council or commission
and I guess, who'd like to start with any comments.
Papke: I just have a, maybe one last question here. Could you outline the milestones going
forward now? You know what mile post are we at right now? What are the next steps? You
mentioned before that you'll eventually be coming back with some city code changes, but
between now and then, you know how do we get to complete sign off, you know signed, sealed,
delivered, done.
Haak: Erin actually put together an updated milestone list. You used a great word. It's like
you've been to these meetings. We had our, as you can see, this is actually where we are, August
15th. So we're very close to the end, which is very exciting to get a project like this nearly
complete. We do have it scheduled for the City Council meeting on August 28th, and delivery of
the final plan just shortly thereafter. So we are 7/8 of the way done, or pretty close to that and
we just have those 2 final things for the actual plan and then actually we anticipate having the
revised ordinance language, the proposed revisions to city code back to the Planning
Commission I believe in November. We're going to try and get this turned around because we
do have some very good standards already recommended as a part of the plan so, it should be a
fairly quick turn around from this point.
Papke: So you mentioned before that Minnehaha Creek is updating their plan, and if I recall
correctly you suggested that their plan might engender some changes to our plan. Do you expect
that all to come in before this goes to City Council or will this be amended after approval or how
will that work?
Haak: It will be amended following approval. We anticipate having a full, an adopted plan prior
to that. One of the reasons that we decided to proceed in that direction is that we just weren't
certain when that, their final plan would be complete. It's very difficult to tell once these go to
the public exactly how many comments you'll have and how much review time it will take so, as
you've seen with this process, we had anticipated being done with this long ago but we did have
some things that we needed to work out so.
Papke: There's a lot of stakeholders in Minnehaha Creek, that's.
Haak: Absolutely. It's a very large Watershed District so.
Papke: Yeah. Okay, thanks.
McDonald: Kevin?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
6
Dillon: No, I just echo what someone else said and commend the staff for the work that they did
on this. It's quite comprehensive and will be an asset to all.
Keefe: Looks good to me.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie? Mark? Okay, I guess we're to the point where I'll accept a
recommendation from the commission.
Undestad: Alright, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the City of
Chanhassen's Second Generation Water Management plan as revised.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the City of Chanhassen's Second Generation Surface Water Management
Plan as revised. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to
0.
Haak: Thank you.
McDonald: And thank you staff.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20,
ZONING, CHANHASSEN CITY CODE.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. This is your opportunity to
change the laws in the community, however these are very small changes we believe at this time.
Not like when we update the Wetland Protection Ordinance or the Surface Water Management
Plan. A lot of these were pointed out. There's some changing in the engineering department.
Other changes within the code that this sort of compliments and so we're bringing these forward.
The first one is on page 1 of the report. It's Section 18-39. The submittal requirements. We just
want to clarify what people, our current practice is to get electronic format submittals, and that
the City prepares the mailing list for people so we wanted to clarify that. And then the fees are
actually established by ordinance in Chapter 4 so resolution was an inappropriate word. Then on
Section C, which is actually the next page, when development signs go out we've been losing a
lot of them and so the City has initiated this year that we actually put them out and bring them
back in so that we can be assured that signs go out to notify the public. So that's that first
change. On page 2, Section 18-40, we recently adopted standards for the retaining walls.
However, one element of that was omitted and that's the maintenance of it. We believe that
retaining walls that are built as part of subdivision should be the responsibility of the developer
or the association rather than the individual property owners and so this language would clarify
that that is in fact the case.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
7
Keefe: Can we ask questions now? Are there other standards in regards to maintenance of
them? So just even my own neighborhood we've got a maintenance issue on a retaining wall and
the association is dealing with it but is there a standard or timeframe or anything along that that
would be, the quality or you know?
Generous: Yeah, it would fall under our property maintenance requirements of the city code,
which is, I think it's Chapter 7 of our ordinance.
Keefe: So there's some language in that.
Generous: Yeah, that it has to be done in an appropriate timeframe and the City can actually
order people to do, make those improvements or if they don't do it we can make the
improvement ourselves and then put it, assess it to their taxes.
Keefe: Yeah, I'm just curious. So there's standards around what the maintenance of a retaining
wall.
Generous: I don't know specifically. If it's 4 feet high there's the engineering requirement but if
it's under that, no. It's just got to be done in a workmen fashion and hopefully in the future we
have the standards for some prohibition against some materials as part of those retaining walls,
as well as requirement that they meet MnDot standards for the wall itself.
Keefe: So this is really more just simply assigning the responsible…
Generous: Yes, to make sure because we have been adding this language as a condition of
approval to plats when we see a lot of retaining walls and so we said well if that's going to be our
policy we should just make it part of the ordinance and so everyone knows upfront that that's the
expectation.
Keefe: Yeah, so this is you're assigned to a developer until it gets turned over to the association
and the association it's your problem not the developer's.
Generous: Right.
Keefe: Yeah, okay.
Generous: Section 18-57 under streets. This recently came to our attention that we omitted the
Residential Low Medium Density district from our residential districts under subdivision so we
added it. We put it in two places because RLM could be used as a low density type
development. Single family homes or twins. Or it could be used for more higher, medium or
high density developments so we had to put it into two categories. When it's under 4 units an
acre, we would treat it as a low density single family. If it's above that, then we treat it as multi-
family, and so we followed through on the next page.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
8
Papke: So just coming back to that Bob. So on the table here on page 3, since RLM appears in
two places, is it clear if I'm a contractor whether I need.
Generous: A 30 or 40.
Papke: A 30 or 40 right-of-way or a 20 or 24 pavement width.
Generous: Yeah, and that's spelled out on the next page under when it's permitted. When we
talk about, when equal to or greater than 4 units per acre or when less than 4 units per acre.
Those standards apply. And then on page 5, this is actually one that Jan has pointed out to us
that we're clarifying when we include the area of the private street easement as part of the lot
area and when we don't, and when we include the impervious surface within that private street
and when we don't. And for our low density it's excluded while it's a private street, and then
when it's a single driveway we count it against the lot area on a parcel. When it's medium or
high density developments, we don't. We include it as part of the lot area because those usually
end up in an easement on an individual parcel and serving multiple parcels, and that's existing
policy of the city how we review it. I also, as part of this am cleaning up the numbering system
on that so while it was…by the publisher, we want to make sure that everyone's on the same
page with what numbers they're citing for these issues so, that's those changes. And then it starts
on page 6 under Section 18-31, but it's all the way to.
Papke: Before you charge ahead there Bob. If I can slow you down here again. In Section 7
and 8 here again, we have RLM in both cases and it's clear which one applies. Can you elucidate
why neither the area within the easement for the private street nor the impervious surface is
included for, in Section 7 but it is included in Section 8. What's the rationale of excluding it in
one and including it in the other?
Generous: Well under the low density, or single family, by definition it's not supposed to be part
of the lot area within that lot.
Papke: So is this consistent with other definitions of lot area or?
Generous: Yes.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: And then when it's medium density or high density we don't treat it the same. We,
it's more like a commercial operation where we count their hard surface coverage against the
whole thing. It's sort of, some of them are probably maybe because we're losing some hard
surface coverage when they're not counting this against any of the lots but it's like streets now.
We don't count that against individual lots too so it's very consistent on the low density end and
on the high density end they get a little more coverage so they can absorb that. Okay, Section
18-61. It's actually the changes that the, well there's two changes. We're trying to break up this
section so we don't have to print every page of this. The 3 pages. When we're just talking about
tree preservation for this one section, but we're adding sub-section (e)(10) which is a lot of times
when we see these reforestation plans, they have some overstory trees but they have a lot of
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
9
ornamental trees and under current ordinance that meets the ordinance. Minimum ordinance
requirements. We would like to see them provide more canopy type trees as part of the
reforestation plan. That's what the existing conditions are there so we're trying to get it back
closer to what it was before, we need to specify that they have to provide those larger trees.
Papke: So fewer crab apples, more oaks.
Generous: Elms and maples and. Not elms I guess.
Papke: Yep, no elms. No elms.
Generous: Except American Elms are very nice tree.
Papke: They die.
Generous: Yeah, they just die.
Keefe: There's a minimum size for overstory tree, right?
Generous: Well it's a 2 1/2 inch caliper but there's a separate list from that. So in Section 18-78
this is one Alyson pointed out to us. Site grading are not necessarily considered site
improvements. Like utilities, infrastructure and roads but they are improvements on the site and
we want to make sure that we have all the development contracts and security in place before
they go forward. Also, she just wanted to point out that developers could be female so her. And
then finally we're now moving to, the City has to review all improvements on projects so private
utilities that go in, private streets, so we want to include those costs against the entire project so
we can retain security to make sure that those are completed. We're already putting in the
administrative time to review that so we ran it through the city attorney and said yeah, you can
charge for that and you can get security to make sure that's installed. So a lot of, on some
developments that's an integral part of it that those private utilities, private infrastructure be put
in and so we want to make sure it's done.
McDonald: Okay, would you explain that when you say private.
Generous: Like a private street. When the public's not going to take over ownership or
maintenance of that. We don't currently take any security. We accept any administration fees
for reviewing it, yet we have to review it as part of the overall project. Or if you have a private
utility line that's extended over a long distance, they still have to comply with specific city
standards and we review that and make sure that it meets all those standards. However we're not
being reimbursed for that review or having any assurance that it's actually put in as part of the
development.
McDonald: Okay, so really the standard for the utilities, whether they were public or private are
the same.
Generous: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
10
McDonald: Yeah, okay.
Generous: So that's all the current changes that we're proposing on Chapter 18. And I don't
know if you'd like me to proceed or.
McDonald: Well, do we have any questions concerning Chapter 18 that we want to go into?
Then why don't you proceed with Chapter 20.
Generous: Okay, in Chapter 20 there aren't that many. One was directed by City Council and
it's the intent of the residential low and medium density district. And I tried to add language in
here to get my essence of what that was. We believe that it was a zoning district that could be
used in cases where you're going to preserve large areas of a project as permanent open space.
And we thought that this was a way to give the developer credit for preserving that space and yet
allow him to get into those density ranges that make their projects work. However, right now
you could do it almost anywhere and we've, Boulder Cove was a case in point. While the
numbers worked out because of the type of project it was, it may not always, we may not always
be that lucky and so we want to make sure that when someone's coming in and requesting that
zoning, that we're getting the open space to offset the more intensive development on the
individual lots. And so this was my shot at trying to clarify that and I think it gets it but that
which I came to you to see if it works or if we should make it even more clear or expand on it.
Dillon: Like call out Bluff Creek.
McDonald: That seems confusing because Boulder, wasn't in the Bluff Creek area.
Generous: Right. And that's, actually that's how I started. That's what we wrote the ordinance
originally was in mind but the second part of that, or large areas of upland will be preserved and
that could happen outside of Bluff Creek.
McDonald: Why?
Keefe: Was there a reason you called out Bluff Creek particularly?
Generous: Only because.
Keefe: Versus from a watershed area.
Generous: No, because that's when I originally drafted the ordinance, that's what my mind set, I
was looking on how to get that density and common open space without doing a planned
development. Using density.
Papke: You might want to say for example in Bluff Creek. Rather than calling it out
specifically. I mean you're using it as an example, not mandating that it be used in Bluff Creek,
which might be confusing.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
11
McDonald: At that point I think we're going to get questions that says, it only can be used in that
district and you're outside of that so it's not available.
Papke: Now, would it be appropriate to use the cluster term in here? That's one that many
people have heard. If that fits with our intent, if our goal is to cluster the housing to leave open
space inbetween, that might provide an additional cue. But I don't know if that's what you're
trying to get to.
Generous: That's all part of it, that you want the development to be concentrated if possible, and
you'd have, leave areas that are more commonly open. And not city parkland because that
doesn't count. This would be land that would be either private ownership or donated to the
community after the development, but where they get their value out of it if you will. An
example we did was Pioneer Pass. We did the RLM zoning on that. They had the smaller lots
up on top of the hill and we received the whole creek corridor as an, we'll be receiving that as
part of an outlot. While a lot of that was wetland, there was a significant area of upland as part
of that.
McDonald: I guess I'll just ask you about clustered because what you brought up, and the only
example that I can come up with was, what was it? Boulder?
Generous: Boulder Cove.
McDonald: Boulder Cove. Okay, we agreed to have triplexes in there and that was part of
pushing things together so we could get open space. Is that like clustered housing?
Papke: That's not a very good example of clustered development, no. Because typically in a
cluster you've got a group of a dozen houses and then maybe a couple acres of prairie land
inbetween or woods or something like that, which I don't know, maybe it's the wrong term.
Maybe we're not trying to.
Generous: And that's only one element of it, is clustering.
McDonald: Maybe concentrated housing is a better approach because we're trying to put the
housing in one area and then leave open space.
Keefe: …RLM district is intended to be used in environmentally sensitive areas, locations such
as the Bluff Creek Overlay District or where large areas of upland will be preserved. Higher
density housing will be allowed in exchange for larger open space or, as an offset to.
Generous: Not really higher density because that's.
Keefe: The term higher density isn't right but it's a way to push the homes together or.
Papke: And I don't know whether Bluff Creek, are we trying to preserve the upland or the
wetland?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
12
Keefe: Well he puts two things in here. He says wetland in one case and then he says open,
upland in the other. That's why I said environmentally sensitive because it's kind of.
Papke: Isn't the wetland already protected?
Keefe: Yes.
Undestad: So we're trying to preserve above that is the upland.
Generous: Because you can't use wetland in calculating density.
Keefe: That's why I said environmentally sensitive.
McDonald: Do we have a good term for that then because at that point it could be upland, could
be wetland. It could be you know land that we're just trying to protect.
Undestad: …cornfield you know it's upland, if it's wide open you're still trying to protect that.
It's not necessarily environmentally sensitive.
Generous: And it may be that you're trying to bring it back and expand an area of big woods that
was farmed.
Keefe: It's a catch all term.
Larson: Well do you have to specify upland, wetland or couldn't you just say land?
Undestad: I think because of the wetlands are protected, you don't have to worry about losing
that, right?
Generous: I'd hate someone to come in and argue that well we've got Hidden Creek Meadows
for example. He had these huge wetlands in here and we're preserving all that so this, we're
preserving a large area of open space permanently. Shouldn't we be able to rezone?
Keefe: It needs to be wordsmithed a little bit more I think.
Papke: The intent is to protect environmentally sensitive lands not already protected by wetland.
Or something like that. I mean because that really could, if I understand you correctly, that's
what we're trying, we're trying to say hey buddy. You don't get credit for the wetland but you've
got something else that's you know environmentally sensitive or important for conservation
purposes or something like that that you're trying to protect because like you say, we're not
trying…
Undestad: Well but in the end if that's what they're doing, that's what the clustering side gets to
is the more land they can keep open, I mean it's cornfields now but something else can grow out
there. Again it's more open area that they're trying to get. So upland in general I guess that still
kind of goes back to, the way he's got there is.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
13
Generous: Well and we could take out the Bluff Creek in there.
Papke: It's a good for example but.
McDonald: I guess the thing is, do you want to work on this and bring it back before us or?
Generous: Sure. Can take that out.
McDonald: Because it seems as though you're trying to catch something in here and we're just
not coming up with all the right words that can probably get you there.
Papke: Need an English major around here.
Generous: I am one but you also need to know what the policy and intent should be. So you
know environmentally sensitive, yeah that's part of it and, but also the concept is yeah, areas that
we may want to recreate a natural area out of. And if someone was willing to do that, they did
an apartment building for instance and saved 5 acres and created a new native plains or
something, you know it might be worthwhile to do too.
Papke: So somehow might want to work in the words like preservation or creation of.
Generous: Well yeah.
Keefe: Preservation of larger open space areas.
Papke: Or creation. What he's saying is creation.
Generous: And we don't want, when I'm putting in a neighborhood, a private neighborhood park
and so I should get credit for that too.
McDonald: So if you say something like that, we're going to have those kind of arguments.
Generous: Yeah, and so we wanted, I think it's more on the natural side that we're looking at is
the idea of that.
Dillon: Doesn't the first sentence in that thing capture it? I mean do you need to elaborate?
Larson: What about direction? Could be directed towards preserving. Or with the intent of
directing towards, I don't know.
McDonald: When you say the first sentence, which one?
Dillon: I mean right under 20-641. The intent of this. For single family. I mean that kind of
nets it out. The second sentence you know provides a little elaboration on that but it's kind of
superfluous to what's, the intent…
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
14
Undestad: The Bluff Creek Overlay is the part of it, I mean if you just took that out, that it's all
intended to be used for large areas of upland will be preserved or created as permanent open
space.
Generous: Well no, that one.
Undestad: Yeah, you want to cover through the whole…
Generous: Yeah, exactly and I think that would work. Then you're not site specific but you're
getting both the intent that it could be a natural area you're preserving or it could be an area that
you're creating.
McDonald: Okay so, how would you re-word that now? Where does it start?
Generous: The RLM District is intended to be used where larger or large areas of, I don’t know,
upland is the word there or not. Upland will be preserved or created as permanent open space to
balance the higher hard surface coverage permitted on individual lots.
Undestad: That sounds good.
Keefe: Or where large areas of upland or large areas of.
Generous: Of land.
McDonald: What was the term you used?
Generous: Non-wetland. Or lake.
McDonald: Preserving or creating open space or, what was the term that you used at some point
that.
Papke: May not be… I don't know, upland is the opposite of wetlands so that pretty much gets
to where you're at.
McDonald: Okay, let's go with that. Okay, does that sound okay?
Generous: Yeah, I think so.
Keefe: Can you say it one more time?
Generous: The RLM District is intended to be used where large areas of upland will be
preserved or created as permanent open space to balance the higher hard surface coverage
permitted on individual lots. And that gets the essence of, we're going to, if you're going to come
in and do the zoning, we anticipate that you're going to create some common open space.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
15
McDonald: Okay. Sounds good.
Generous: Okay, and then Section 20-1255. On page 10. Subsection (d) is already in the
prohibited sections. It's a duplicate and I couldn't figure out how it got there. I think it was just
mis-printed there. Section 20-1259. Subsection (2). We're adding, and this was at the direction
of City Council. They wanted regulations that if these message boards were located near single
family homes that they would only be on for a certain time period. What we used in this instance
was the example of Chapel Hill.
Papke: How about Halla?
Generous: Halla? Halla wouldn’t be permitted because he's in the agricultural district. He
probably also wouldn't meet it because of separation but that's a separate.
Papke: Separate issue.
Generous: Right. So you know 6:00 a.m. to 10:00, we believe that gives them a long enough
period so they can use it and get messages out, but then at night, especially during the winter on
a night that's a lot longer. It wouldn't be…even though we do have a requirement that they tone
down the intent of the other lighting. It's just something that the council was.
Keefe: This is kind of add onto the one (g) above. Cannot be located in agricultural or
residential. But furthermore, it says they're…within 500 feet of that.
Generous: Within single family homes, exactly. Then on the bottom of page 11. Section 1265.
As we have a conflict in our ordinance. There's 10 citations where it says the setback's a
minimum of 10 feet, and then in this one it says it's half the required setback. So it was either
modify the other 10 or do this one. We think this is reasonable. It's what we anticipate in a lot
of projects. It keeps it out of sight distances, and that's the second change of the sight distance.
It's not a sight distance, so we're just clarifying that it's, an area that you have to look on the
corner so.
Papke: So explain to me how the last two sentences there differ. The signs shall not block, the
sentence. The sight distance triangle.
Generous: From any private drive or easement. Or access.
Papke: The signs shall not be located in any sight distance triangle so that would apply to.
Generous: And public right-of-way is the intent. Because at driveways the sign would have to
be 45 feet back from the curb to keep out of the sight distance triangle. But on the corner, the 30
foot setback from the property line, the definition's already in the ordinance and so we're just.
Papke: So just for clarity and consistency, what is the difference between signs shall not block
and signs shall not be located in? How could something be located in if they're not blocked? Or
vice versa.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
16
Generous: They're the same but the only difference, the intent, the only difference was one was
at the end of driveways which may be in the middle of a block but not at the intersection of two
streets. So maybe we need to leave in a sight distance triangle of an intersection.
Papke: I'm just concerned with the language here. You know it just sounds like those are two
separate things so I'm trying to visualize in my brain here you know what these triangles look
like and what it means so that, I can't understand how something could be located in the sight
distance triangle, yet not block it. You see where I'm getting at?
Generous: Yes.
Papke: I understand that these are two separate cases, but there might be some value in.
Generous: To making them both consistent?
Papke: Consistent otherwise it's like well, okay one of them tells me I can't block it and the other
one says I can't be in it so I guess.
Generous: Shall not be located.
Papke: Yeah. See where I'm going?
Generous: So we'll just, okay we'll change the first reference to say located in the sight distance
triangle. And get out block. Take out the block. And then I think I will, to clarify that, sight
distance triangle of and put back in of an intersection. So that.
Papke: That's what you're trying to get at.
Generous: Yeah, to clarify that that, this is for the public street and a public intersection.
Papke: Yeah, so might want to state for a public.
Generous: Public intersection.
Papke: Yeah.
McDonald: Okay, but the 30 feet still…
Generous: Yes. The sight distance is the same in both instances. It's how you measure it. At an
intersection you can use the crossing line at a driveway that's in the middle of the block, you
have to use the distance because it's only one property line. You don't have two. I can draw it.
McDonald: You say that so clearly but what I'm wondering about is, are we going to get some
developer in here where we start to get into arguments about what this triangle is and where I'm
at and what the sides are.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
17
Generous: The one, let's say this is a.
Papke: And maybe the picture should go, can you put a picture in the city code here rather than
just explain.
Generous: Yeah, we could add a picture under the definition section.
McDonald: That would probably help.
Papke: Yeah, you know rather than just explaining it to us. I think it's more important that the
people who eventually have to read it get it.
Generous: So, but in this instance for property lines we measure back the distance and draw a
line between that and this area would be the sight distance triangle. So you'd have to put a sign
back behind there. Now in this instance you only have one property line so you can come back
30 feet here but then we don't know where to put it on this way. There's no angle so what we do,
we say is you have to be 45 feet back from the curb which is usually out farther. The driveway
goes out into the right-of-way. And so you go back 45 feet. In essence you get the same
location as if you would do a 30 foot, but then you're out this angle. They can see that way and
that way. Or this way and that way. As part of the definition we are working on that separately
and I can put a drawing in there.
Papke: Drawing's always help.
McDonald: Yep, that will help.
Generous: As they say it's worth 1,000 words. Or at least 10 minutes of my trying to draw.
Larson: Yeah, take a photograph of it and put one out there.
Generous: And then on the last page 12, under (c), the City currently does approve signs in
public right-of-ways and so this clarifies under what instances that we would. We see as part of
the subdivision they'll put their sign in that driveway or the access road coming into the project,
right in the median and so.
Papke: One of those signs along Market Boulevard there in front of the Americana Bank where
all the businesses have their, I don't know last time I drove by there was a bunch of them stacked
up in there…
Generous: No, because those are in, those on private property as opposed to public property.
Papke: Really? Because they're right along side the road.
Generous: Are those those little ones?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
18
Papke: Yeah, the little ones.
Generous: Yeah, those were illegal. We need a full time sign person to keep up on.
Larson: And what about political signs?
Generous: Those aren't supposed to be in the right-of-way. You have to permit them beginning
August 1st to be on private property. The free speech requirement. So the code permits it
without a permit and we just say you have to meet standards.
Larson: You hope nobody pokes into.
Generous: Yeah, well we actually had to take some down because they were like on August 29th
they were up and we were getting calls.
Papke: How about realtor signs? There's a jillion of them around the city here.
Generous: Yeah, they're supposed to be on private property too and it's you know, and we're
sending out notification to a bunch of businesses about these temporary signs. About the city
ordinance requirements and hopefully part of the education, that will help reduce some of it but
really we tell our public works people, if they see signs in the right-of-way, pull them up.
Especially if they're in a bad location for sight. Creates a safety hazard at that intersection. And
again, that's something you could do 24/7. Once you finish you start over again because they're
back.
Keefe: This establishes the rule. It doesn't necessarily.
Generous: Yeah, and this is only in the public right-of-way so we're looking more at the
subdivision signs as part of maybe a commercial project where someone would want to put it in
there. So we'll clarify it for at least in those instances. And that's all for now. So staff is
recommending approval, adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 18, attached with that
revision to the RLM intent section. And the one that we did for the sight distance triangle. And
as part of my amendment to Chapter 1 in definitions I'll look at including a picture. I think Josh
actually drew one up so.
McDonald: Okay.
Generous: But he's on vacation.
McDonald: Okay well, at this point do the commissioners have any more questions of staff?
Then why don't we, this is a public meeting. We will now open it up to the public. Anyone
wishing to make comment, please come forward. State your name and address the commission.
Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I have a question on the first page, Section
18-39 and I was wondering the reason why the City wants to prepare the list of property owners
as opposed to previously was certified by the Abstract company.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
19
Generous: Currently we do that on our applications we, the City says we're, we'll make it and
you'll pay us for it. We have a GIS system that's very good. We get it from Carver County and
it's updated and we can do it. We can make sure we have the information available when they,
when the submittal comes in rather than, a lot of times before people would do it, oh I forgot the
list and so okay, we'll give you a few more days to get it in. And we weren't sure that we'd have
it. This way we're sure we have it.
Janet Paulsen: And it's just as accurate as an Abstract company would be?
Generous: Yes, it's based on the Carver County data.
Janet Paulsen: Okay. Then on page 2, I have a question. Well I have a request actually. The
sentence where the Community Development Director may require an expanding mailing list for
sites fronting on the lake shore when the development would be visible over a larger area. I was
thinking, especially of the development Lakeside on Lake Riley, and the only people notified
were those within 500 feet. All along the west side of that lake those people were not notified
and I'm sure they would have been very interested. And there's quite a bit of housing on that side
of the lake. And also Eden Prairie has that large park. I'm not sure if that's the Lake Riley-
Purgatory Creek Park or if it's Eden Prairie but maybe they should have been notified too. And
previously, 2 1/2 years, 2-2 1/2 years ago it was required that everybody on the lake be notified,
and the Planning Commission didn't think that that was important anymore but I have to tell you
the lake owners are the best watch dogs of your lake water that there are. I would like to have
that reinstated. And then on page 5 of 12. On number 7. The private street issue with RLM
district. I was wondering when it's less than 4 units per acre, when is the impervious surface of
that street calculated? Ever?
Generous: No.
Janet Paulsen: Never?
Generous: Never. When it's part of a private street. When it's a driveway then we count it
against both the lot and the lot area.
Janet Paulsen: And then the statement there, once the private street terminates, what does that
mean, when it terminates?
Generous: When it's no longer.
Janet Paulsen: To the side or the end?
Generous: When it's no longer used by 2 properties. The definition of a private street is
basically it's a driveway serving more than 1 lot. Once it's no longer…it's not a private street
anymore. It's a driveway and so that's where the area would, it would terminate from being
excluded from the lot area and being excluded from the lot coverage.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
20
Janet Paulsen: And so then on 8, when both area and the impervious surface of the easement in
front of it's street shall be included in the calculation of lot area. I'm just confused on what that
means. What is the difference between the two?
Generous: In multi family we're not going to exclude, or multi family or industrial we don't
exclude the area of the private street from the calculations. Either from the area, lot area or from
impervious surface area. It's like Lifetime Fitness. Technically that part of their driveway is a
private street because it's serving, well that's not a good because they haven't platted yet but in
essence when something serves more than one lot it's a private street. But it's really in
commercial it's a driveway. It's a parking lot area and so we want to count that, both for the
impervious area and for the lot area. Again then we don't run into, well we're not accounting for
all this hard coverage.
Janet Paulsen: So is there an advantage then for the RLM people or greater than 4 units per
acre? Do they get an advantage of more space for their lot and less impervious?
Generous: No. They get, the impervious surface is counted against their lot. They also get that
area within that easement or within, yeah within the easement counted as their lot area, so they
get some density out of it.
Papke: I'm more concerned with the other case, the RSF and the RLM less than 4. I mean
basically what we're saying, if by excluding, if we included it instead of excluded it, we're
basically averaging in 100% surface coverage area, okay. So what you're saying is geez, if I
have an RSF or an RLM with you know, less than 4, I can get more impervious surface coverage
just by putting in private streets. Ooh. There's a way to get around it.
Generous: Well yeah, for that portion and then.
Papke: So why are, remind me again why we're calculating it this way?
Generous: That's the way it's defined. You can't include the private street as part of the lot area
for the single family home. So we also can't, if you can't count the lot area, then you shouldn't be
able to count the impervious surface in that area against that lot either.
McDonald: Okay, I thought one of the big problems was we also go to smaller lots on these
RLM's and that was the other thing was to try to get something to help them out there, otherwise
they're not going to be able to meet the standards without increasing the lot and we're trying to
squeeze the lots down anyway.
Generous: Right, and as far as.
Papke: So the private streets would be included in the net hard surface coverage of the entire
development. Yes? When they calculate the overall percentage of hard surface coverage for the
whole development that would be included, right?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
21
Generous: If we did a planned development they would. In this instance it's excluded. Only the
private streets now. Portion of it. It's like we don't, for single family we don't count the public
street. Or the area of the public street when you calculate.
Papke: Okay. So it's equivalent to a public street?
Generous: Right. As far as how you track it.
Papke: So what I said before was incorrect. The developer has no net benefit to put in private
streets. So they would get docked the same amount whether it's a public street or private street,
yes or no?
Generous: Well for the private streets they get a smaller easement area to put it in. So they gain
some for the, some area, potentially for an individual lot.
Papke: Yeah, yeah. But in terms of, if I was a developer I don't have an incentive to put in a
private street to get around the hard surface coverage requirement because in essence you know,
I'm going to, that area is not going to be counted whether it's public or private. It's just that it's
public. If it's private, it's smaller.
Generous: Right.
Papke: Which actually is a good thing. So, okay.
Generous: So there are potential benefits to development, but I don't.
Papke: Alright, are we still confused here or?
Janet Paulsen: Well when they put in a private street, they don't have to put as much area in the
street.
Papke: Right. Right, which is fine. That's less hard surface coverage. From the perspective of
hard surface.
Janet Paulsen: That means they can crowd more lots in less space.
Generous: Yeah, but under low density you don't get 4 lots per private street anyway so. There's
not an incentive to do that under low density. The incentive's under medium or high density, or
commercial.
Janet Paulsen: Well they used to cram in.
Generous: If yes, high density.
Janet Paulsen: Even in RSF they used to cram in.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
22
Generous: Well yes, make some sites work, and.
Papke: It will give you a little bit more density but it doesn't, what I was concerned with before
is I'm, if I was creating any kind of incentive for developers to gain the hard surface coverage
requirement. That's what I'm concerned with, and it doesn’t sound like this is doing that. So
they may be able to, like you say, squeeze a few more lots in as a result because the streets don't
take up as much space, but they're not, they're not creating more of a runoff problem by doing
that because the streets are smaller.
Debbie Lloyd: …RLM, more than 3 lots…
Papke: I'm not following why that would be the case.
McDonald: Why don't you come up to the podium.
Debbie Lloyd: Because neither of the lot areas nor the pavement.
Papke: But that's also true if it's a public street. Okay so what I'm concerned with, what I want
to avoid is I don't want to create an incentive for a developer to say, I'm going to gain the system
and get, and work around the hard surface coverage by putting in a private street because this
would…Private or public, either way it ain't going to get counted.
Debbie Lloyd: You're right.
Papke: Alright.
McDonald: As long as you're up there, if you want to state your name and address for the
record, we would appreciate it.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to back up one section. 18-40(f).
If the assumption that this is going, a retaining wall is going to only be for an area that has a
homeowners association and you might have a development with 4 lots that might have a
retaining wall across the lot but don't have a homeowners association. So you might want to say,
a homeowners association or homeowners.
Papke: But then, if you don't have a homeowners association you're right back to not having.
Debbie Lloyd: Once it crosses lots, I mean.
Generous: And that's what we're trying to get at.
Papke: But that's when you're back to having the individual homeowners maintain it so, I'm not
sure what you gain by saying okay, well if there's no homeowners association, then well yeah.
You're back to not having this aspect in the code at all.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
23
Debbie Lloyd: But don't you have to have homeowners, don't you have to require they maintain
it once the developer is gone.
Generous: Yes, that's what it is now. They each are responsible for that portion of the wall that's
on their property.
Debbie Lloyd: So, okay.
Generous: This is, we want, let's say there's 7 lots in the subdivision and there's a retaining wall
that's put on 3 of them to make the subdivision work. Because it's for the overall subdivision, we
think all 7 properties should be responsible for that maintenance and repair rather than the 3 that
actually physically have it.
Papke: I think you're bringing up a valid point though. You might want to say, stipulate in here
just to make it clear, you know if there is a homeowners association, then they're responsible for
maintaining it. Otherwise it reverts to the following, which is the individual lots. Because
otherwise there might be some questionable interpretation of it.
Generous: Or the condis, if there's not a homeowners association then it would be the
responsibility of all the lots within that subdivision.
McDonald: Well but then also as you said before, it comes down to the city's going to end up
making the repairs and assess homeowners for those costs.
Generous: Right so, but at least rather than my example, those 3 homes that actually have it on
where the assessment would go against the 7 homes in that neighborhood.
Debbie Lloyd: In the subdivision.
Generous: Yes, in the subdivision. So that we could clarify that last part. If there's no
homeowners association then it would be the responsibility of all the lots within that subdivision.
Debbie Lloyd: Because it could be onerous for one single homeowner who happens to be the
one that has the property.
Papke: So this applies when it crosses boundaries.
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah.
Papke: But if there's 100 houses in the development and in only crosses 2 lots, now you're
asking the other 98 homeowners to pick up the tab. Is that what you want to do?
Debbie Lloyd: If the retaining wall was integral to making the other 98 work as part of the
overall project, we don't know.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
24
Papke: I just, that's going to, you know whenever you're talking money, it's going to be an issue.
This is like the street improvements. Who pays? Power lines. Who pays? I have a longer lot
and a shorter lot line. You know if this retaining wall doesn't run through my back yard, I don’t
want to pay for it.
Generous: That's right.
McDonald: Somehow you need to tie it to the approval process. I mean if it was part of the
approval for the, if it's a PUD or subdivision, that's it. You know it's tied to that particular thing.
I mean somehow you've got to get it narrowed down to who is responsible. Because if you're
now saying it was integral of making that subdivision again with, okay. How did that affect the
other 97 lots in this 100 lot development that just crosses these 3? Did the wall only allow you to
add the 3 or did it allow you to add the whole development? I mean these are the kind of issues
you're going to get into because yeah, you start assessing 100 people and they're not going to like
it, or you only assess the 3 and they're not going to like it either, so there needs to be some
definition in there because ultimately the city is the association that's going to do the repairs.
And how are you going to recollect your money for it, if there isn't a homeowners association.
So yeah, I think that is a valid point as to how you determine where the assessments are going to
be.
Keefe: Typically homeowners associations are established up front, right? So the establishment
of them…recorded with the subdivision. So the rules associated with that, I mean would include
maintenance of the retaining wall.
McDonald: But that only works where you have a homeowners association. You can't have
subdivisions without a homeowners association and now how do you deal with this?
Generous: Yeah, the benefited properties that's just beyond the ones that it may be in the… If
this retaining wall allowed them to put two rows of houses in, then it's both sides of the street
would be the benefiting properties.
McDonald: That's fine but where do you find that? I mean where is it said that this is why that
wall went in to benefit these other dwellings also.
Keefe: Maybe it's an additional sentence like in subdivisions without an association, the
retaining wall will then be maintained by the befitting properties.
Papke: But then it's open to interpretation.
Keefe: …properties that will benefit from it.
Papke: Okay, well that's one definition.
Debbie Lloyd: Maybe the benefiting parties need to be identified during the process and part of
Findings of Fact the benefiting parties are. If it's not a homeowners association.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
25
Papke: It's kind of creating a new step in creating a subdivision. Now you know along with the
plat you've got to record who the benefiting properties are. You know it kind of opens up a.
McDonald: Big can of worms.
Papke: Can of worms. The easiest way would be just to say well, if it's in your back yard, you
pay for it.
Generous: Well that's what we have now.
Papke: Yeah. Well and it's probably reasonable.
Larson: Why did it come up to change it?
Generous: With some of the new subdivisions.
Papke: …that's cool but if there is no association and it's in your back yard, you pay for it.
Dillon: Yeah, what is to tamper with it. I mean if it's a, you know let the local rule decide who's
going to pay for it.
Keefe: I think the way you stated it, you said what you're doing it. Right now it's whatever
property it lies on, right? They pay for it. What you're adding here is, where there is an
association, the association is going to pick up the tab. Otherwise it's where it is today. It will
follow exactly where it is today.
McDonald: Yeah, so in other words you keep the language you've got. We don't get into this, as
far as benefiting properties and then you add the homeowners association and it's in their
covenants and it's taken care of.
Generous: Yeah, that would do it with the association.
Papke: Have we beaten this one to death?
McDonald: I think so.
Debbie Lloyd: You're supposed to beat up to death. That's what you're charged to do.
McDonald: Okay, well we just wanted to make sure that we have beat it to death and that we
performed our duties.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay.
McDonald: Is there another one you want us to.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
26
Debbie Lloyd: 18-57. The chart. You did bring it up I think Kurt. I think having been through
so many, watching this for so long and through so many different projects. As many as you
have, I think putting it in the chart, RLM equals less than, equals less than 3. 4 plus. …so that it
clarifies.
Generous: Yeah, I can do that.
McDonald: Okay.
Debbie Lloyd: And Section 18-57(p). When you're defining the minimum width of the
roadway, perhaps you might want to include the width of the right-of-way along with that. The
20, you know like in (p).
Generous: Repeat the table again?
Debbie Lloyd: (p)(1). No, you're just saying, paved to a width of 20 feet, right-of-way 30. I
mean it's just a suggestion. You have it in the table. And the same with the minimum width of
26 right-of-way. Point 2, I'm just going to, on (p)(2). Private streets. I just want to point this out
to you all. It says in here, parking on private streets or otherwise blocking all or part of the
private street shall be prohibited. In bringing this up last night, Liberty on the Creek was
approved. 20 foot private street. Serving homes. Parking is allowed. It was passed with
allowing parking on 20 foot wide streets, except in the winter. I mean just go check out the
width of one of these private streets and try to have your friends pass you and then think about a
car's parking on 2 sides of the street. It's just so unsafe. Those are the things I think you really
need to watch when they come through. The Mayor pointed that out to me last night, well in the
plan for that development originally cars parked in the driveways of their home would have
come out into the street. Well if that's the case then I'd say the lots are substandard to begin with.
Okay, 20-6, Section 20-641. You guys really worked this one over very well but that word
permanent jumps out at me. That permanent open space only because of what happened recently
at Chaska with permanent open space.
Papke: Are you talking about the greenway?
Debbie Lloyd: Perhaps you could put a different word in there. Or maybe it should become a
conservation easement. Again just a suggestion. Just that word permanent can be over read and
we've seen it passing you know. Especially upland. When you said corn fields, upland. Open
space.
Papke: But wasn't that a change in land use in Chaska?
Debbie Lloyd: It was but.
Papke: So in this case, I mean the plat is the plat.
Debbie Lloyd: Well okay, outlots. Outlots. Bob knows what I probably am getting at with
Lakeside. There was an outlot dedicated to.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
27
Generous: For the beachlot?
Debbie Lloyd: Yes. For a beachlot for one neighborhood which ultimately because of use by
another neighborhood, ended up being taken over. What's the name of that Bob?
Generous: Adverse possession.
Debbie Lloyd: Adverse possession. Yeah. So that lot was sold to the developer of Lakeside,
even though originally as an outlot it belonged to another development. So there's things that
happen because I've heard the word outlot before.
Papke: …how can you make it stronger?
Generous: Mr. Chairman. The good thing about this language in the rezoning in any subdivision
that would be done as part of that is we would either take it as dedication or donation to the
community as an outlot, or they would have a conservation recorded with it.
Debbie Lloyd: Well both are great then.
Generous: And that's how we do it under, like we did for the Pioneer Pass. That was a
requirement. Either they, they could keep it in private ownership but they have to put the
conservation easement. Or they can donate it to the City.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. Those are controlled…that's great. Okay, and then Section 20-1265. Just
the word private drive. I mean private drive, it should be private driveway. In code there is not a
private drive. Right Bob?
Generous: I don't know. Probably not.
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, I think we got rid of that a few years ago. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Okay, any comments by the commissioners. Oh. Come on back up. I
thought you were done. Sorry.
Janet Paulsen: Oh I'm sorry. I forgot one. On Section 18-57. Streets. And there are 3
classifications. They're talking about cul-de-sacs and turn around radiuses. On private streets,
aren't the turn around's approved by the fire marshal and that there is no standard. I suppose if
you're just addressing two homes that's not such a problem but RLM it could be. Shouldn't we
have standards for turn around's for private streets?
McDonald: I guess what that all comes down to is the fire marshal approves or disapproves it.
None of these are approved without going through him.
Janet Paulsen: And then I want to make one more point about private streets. Show this. This is
the two lots for example next to my home and a private street was put in here, so it's a 30 foot
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
28
private street, and this is the driveway coming off to address this house, and this is the driveway
coming down to address this house. The problem is, this is a hill going uphill and the driveway
coming into this home does not have a turn around and so they have to back up and come out this
way. Back out into the street, or they turn around here and go out front wards in the street, and
anything coming down here of course has to turn around down here. Now the problem is, the
City views this as, this is the only, this strip, the private street only has to go this far because it's
addressing this home here and then down to here, but it's not taking into account that a street, a
driveway that doesn't have a turn around here would have to back out and if they're going to back
out this way, it's actually serving 2 homes to the back up point. And that's my point I want to
make about private streets that hasn't been considered by the City. And it's kind of a dangerous
situation if you have backing out into a busy street.
Papke: Wouldn't that be true of any long driveway? You're going to run into the same situation
where you're backing out a long distance potentially into a busy street?
Janet Paulsen: That's not addressing 2 homes though.
Papke: No, it's one home that, 2 homes with 2 driveways that are going to have exactly the same
problem.
Janet Paulsen: Well I maintain that.
Papke: I'm just saying I don't see how it differs from a long driveway.
Janet Paulsen: Well my point is that the access they need to back up and go uphill, this is, this
should be part of the private street also. Not just the original 30 feet because 2 people are using
that. That's my point. Thank you.
McDonald: Staff can look at that. Okay. At this point then, seeing no one else wanting to get
up, I will close the public meeting on this issue. I'll bring it back up for the commissioners. Any
comments? Okay, then at that point I'd be willing to accept a recommendation on staff's
proposal before us.
Keefe: Sure. Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached
ordinances amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. With modifications as
noted.
Papke: Second.
McDonald: Okay, good.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
attached ordinances amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code as
amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 15, 2006
29
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 1, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Kevin
Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson; Community Development Director; and Josh Metzer,
Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
MARVIN & PATRICIA ONKEN: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR USE OF A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6221 GREENBRIAR
AVENUE, PLANNING CASE 06-29.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mr. & Mrs. Marvin Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior
Margaret R. Sloan 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked about parking
requirements. Commissioner Dillon asked for clarification of what happens when the property is
sold. The applicant, Marvin Onken addressed the commission. Chairman McDonald opened the
public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the
use of a single family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single Family Residential (RSF)
District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report, with
the following conditions:
1. The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants'
mother/mother-in-law.
2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must
receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit.
3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code.
Planning Commission Summary - September 5, 2006
2
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Dillon moved, Commissioner Undestad
seconded to note the verbatim and summary minutes dated August 15, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kurt Papke, and Kevin
Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson; Community Development Director; and Josh Metzer,
Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING:
MARVIN & PATRICIA ONKEN: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR USE OF A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6221 GREENBRIAR
AVENUE, PLANNING CASE 06-29.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mr. & Mrs. Marvin Onken 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior
Margaret R. Sloan 6221 Greenbriar Avenue, Excelsior
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Mark, why don't we start with you.
Undestad: I really don't have any questions on this one.
McDonald: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: There'd be one additional person that we're aware of that would go into this particular
unit. And then is there, is there a requirement for additional parking for the units such as this?
Metzer: They have 3 garage stalls and I believe a 36 foot wide driveway, which from my
understanding will be enough in speaking with the applicant.
Keefe: Okay, it's the city's opinion that there'll be enough off street parking to accommodate this
additional unit?
Metzer: Yes.
Keefe: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006
2
Dillon: So if this variance is granted and it goes forth and all that stuff, what happens if the
property changes hands?
Metzer: Typically what we'd do is we'd require that the kitchen be removed or the sanitary
facility, one of the items which are necessary to classify it as a separate dwelling unit is defined
as eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities. So removal of one of those would basically eliminate
the need for a variance.
Dillon: And how is that enforced?
Aanenson: If you look at the conditions of approval. The first condition, I'm on page 3 of the
staff report recommends that the second dwelling unit not be rented to anyone than the
applicants. As stated in a letter, the applicants of this proposing to have their 91 year old mother,
mother-in-law live with them. Just antidotally, we did receive a concern from some of the
neighbors about changing the character, which comes up under the circumstance but we did pull
up, we've done probably 3-4 of these. There isn't a big rash of requests for these. I'll just pull up
one that we did on Briarwood Court, which is off of Galpin. That was done in '01 and the same
owners are living there. Then there was one done in 1990, and that was a similar situation.
Mother, mother-in-law. Still living there. And then most recently this Planning Commission did
approve a request from Mr. Carlson, up in the Minnewashta area for a handicap daughter, so we
don't see more than maybe 1 every 5 years. But understanding your concern Commissioner
Dillon and that, we do put that condition in there. It is recorded through the County so if it gets
listed as a mother-in-law apartment or something like that, then they need to check and see
exactly what the conditions and limitations are when they list that property and how it should be
listed. The reason that we don't have as much concern about these. These folks went through
the process to do it forthright. We do have other ones where we put the rental ordinance in place
that sometimes tried to go under the radar and maybe fix something up but we haven't
historically had a problem with these types of units and how they're being used.
Dillon: Okay.
Papke: The only question I had was addressed.
McDonald: Yeah, that was pretty much the one question I had too. At this point then, if the
applicant is here, would you please come forward. And I guess the only thing we're looking for
is if you have something else you would like to add to what staff has already said or something
else that you feel that we should be aware of.
Marvin Onken: Well I guess when we started this project we had envisioned that we would try
to build a home for my mother-in-law that was as much like our home that you would expect to
live in as possible and we didn't realize that including a kitchen facility would infringe on the
multi-dwelling home ordinance or whatever. So we had decided we wanted to do this before we
found out the details so, had we known in the beginning we probably wouldn't have bothered
really with this but I'm hoping somewhere down the line the ordinance is changed such that we
can do this without going through all of this stuff. We are willing to remove the kitchen after it's
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006
3
no longer needed. There's no way to really separate this home on the lots and, we're putting in an
elevator. We decided to put in a residential elevator because we thought eventually we would
need it anyway so we're going to use it as long as we might need it in the future anyway. We
have persuaded mom to give up her driving so she has sold her car. There's not an extra car
involved in this particular application so we're, we look forward to whatever help you can give
us in our project here. Thank you. Any questions?
McDonald: Any questions commissioners? I guess not. Thank you sir. At this point, this is an
open public meeting and I would extend the invitation to anyone sitting out who wishes to come
forward and to speak on this, to come up to the podium. Address the commissioners with your
concerns or questions and we'll take it from there. Does anyone wish to come forward? Seeing
no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting and bring this back before the commissioners
for discussion and a vote. Kurt, why don't you start us off.
Papke: Nothing else.
Dillon: My one concern was addressed and I have no others.
Keefe: Looks good to me.
Undestad: Same with me.
McDonald: Okay, I really don't have anything either. The concern I had was also addressed. I
think it's well in hand so at this point I would be open for a motion from the commissioners.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the
use of a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling in a single family residential RSF
district at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report with
conditions 1 through 3 as stated in the staff report.
McDonald: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Keefe: Second.
McDonald: Oh, I'm sorry. Getting ahead of myself. Okay, second.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission approves the variance for the
use of a single family dwelling as a two-family dwelling in Single Family Residential (RSF)
District at 6221 Greenbriar Avenue based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report, with
the following conditions:
1. The second dwelling unit shall not be rented to anyone other than the applicants'
mother/mother-in-law.
2. All outstanding permits that have been obtained for improvements to the property must
receive final inspection approval prior to occupancy of the additional unit.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2006
4
3. The proposed dwelling unit must be constructed in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Dillon moved, Commissioner Undestad
seconded to note the verbatim and summary minutes dated August 15, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
AUGUST 22, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy, Steve
Scharfenberg, Tom Kelly and Paula Atkins
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Daniel moved, Kelly seconded to approve the agenda,
amended to add discussion of the joint meeting with City Council. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Daniel moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
2007 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP).
Todd Neils, President of Chanhassen Little League thanked the commission for the
improvements made at Lake Ann Park this year, and asked the commission to seek additional
land in the community for additional large park spaces such as Lake Ann and Bandimere to
accommodate the anticipated growth. Ann Voliss showed a picture of her softball team which
won the state tournament held at Lake Ann Park and thanked the council and previous councils
for the great facility. She echoed the request for more field space in the city and suggested the
installation of fences at Bluff Creek fields, additional batting cages, enhanced fan seating and
asked about the possibility of a sign congratulating the Chanhassen 2006 Little League Softball
State Champions. Todd Hoffman reviewed the proposed items for the 2007 CIP, along with the
proposed 5 year CIP. The commission discussed future expansion of trails and parks, and the
possibility of installing ballfield lights for the 2008 season.
Kelly moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
approval of the following items for the 2007 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development
Capital Improvement Program:
Park and Rec Commission Summary - August 22, 2006
2
Lighting of 2 Athletic Fields $150,000
Lake Ann Park Parkview Picnic Shelter $95,000
Power Hill Park Trail $75,000
Tennis Court Repair $45,000
Minnetonka Middle School West Tennis
Court Project Contribution $30,000
Picnic Tables/Park Benches (Annual) $6,000
Trees (Annual) $5,000
Total $406,000
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
RECREATION PROGRAMS:
DAVE HUFFMAN 5K MEMORIAL RUN. Jerry Ruegemer presented an update on the
upcoming event set for Saturday, September 9th. It was suggested that coaching be provided to
the people giving off times mid race or the installation of a clock mid race.
FALL PROGRAM UPDATE. Jerry Ruegemer noted this was an informational item.
DISCUSSION OF JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. The commission
discussed the topics of parkland acquisition, trail acquisition, finishing the master plans for the
city parks, construction of an amateur baseball stadium, and joint projects with District 112, i.e.
ice arena and pool.
Spizale moved, Atkins seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 22, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy, Steve
Scharfenberg, Tom Kelly and Paula Atkins
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Daniel moved, Kelly seconded to approve the agenda,
amended to add discussion of the joint meeting with City Council on September 14, 2006
at 7:15 p.m.. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Daniel moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
2007 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP).
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar and members of the commission. Tonight we're not only
going to take a look at 2007, but then 2007 through 2011 for the 5 year CIP. We use the 5 year
CIP as a guide and obviously each year we move forward we just extend it out one year. I've
written some narrative as a part of this conversation and that's generally provides you some kind
of look inside the comprehensive planning process that the city gets involved with for parks and
trail planning. It's a goal, what I really want you to think about tonight is, and obviously a
budget or a CIP and a variety of projects with a variety of numbers attached to them, but I want
you to think about what type of recommendation you want for the City Council. What type of
direction you want to recommend they move into. Not just next year but for the 5 years.
Upcoming 5 years. Using approximately $400,000 per year for a total of $2 million dollars in
investment. And so as 7 commissioners making recommendations regarding park and trail
improvement, you have $2 million dollars at least at your disposal for a recommendation over
the next 5 years to make some things happen with our community and continue to expand our
park and trail system. That's fairly significant. It's not as significant as say a referendum…but
on an annual basis for a city our size, many cities would really enjoy to have that kind of a
capital improvement program. There's a variety of bullets. I don't think I'll read them but they're
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
2
all in the CIP. They talk about generally the things we do on a daily basis and encourage
cooperative effort between local school systems and the city in acquisition, development and the
usage of recreational lands and facilities. We've done on nearly, well on all the schools that we
have in our community, and we'll continue to do that as the high school moves in. So those are
some strategies that, policies to accomplish the goals from, well let's read it out loud. The goal
of managing a successful park and trail CIP is to provide recreational facilities and open space
areas that reasonably meet the outdoor recreation needs of the community's residents and protect
environmentally sensitive areas. That's always been our task is to reasonably meet the
expectations of our citizens. In the back page I talk about the big picture in the world of
comprehensive park and trail planning, and what you need first is the land and/or right-of-ways
necessary to establish a park and trail system. For the most part we have that land in place and
those right-of-ways for trails. We're having a look at the new high school that's coming to town
and from what we can estimate now, we were hoping that that new high school would be a
positive generator of additional capacity in outdoor recreational facilities, and what we think may
end up happening is it may actually be a negative because it does not have the available land on
the campus to fulfill all their needs as a high school for a JV/Varsity athletics, and so as they
come to town, if that facility is built, and bring those students along with, they'll be looking for
additional capacity or access to fields such as Lake Susan, Bandimere, Lake Ann, which are
already full with our ongoing activities and so it's going to be something that we can sense right
now is some net loss and so should we be looking for an additional facility for athletic fields
before we're all said and done as a community. It's probably, likely almost the last school that
will be built…and if we acquire something else to add more fields or athletic space, it would
likely be the last time that happens too in our community. Those are significant things in a city's
development. We have 740 acres of park today. That's 5% of our total area. 54 miles of trails.
Additional 22 miles of sidewalks, so we have a good base, but what do you want to see into the
future? As we focused on playgrounds and safety over the last 2 or 3 years, that was very
important to the commission. We have aging playgrounds and I think you've seen the result of
those investments. You have some, a recommendation that was presented to you about, or for
2007 attached in your packet. It totals $405,000. It includes items such as the Arboretum
Business Park trail, $190,000. Again I won't go all through those right at this time. I want to
hear from the commission but at some point this evening I will, just for your benefit, when Chair
Stolar thinks it's appropriate, go through the laundry list of items that are out there. Each of
these parks has a capital plan. A master plan and I know some of you are very familiar with
some of our parks. Some of you are familiar, somewhat familiar with all our parks but we have
34 sites that we're trying to reach on an annual basis to maintain and improve. Those are
significant numbers and if you want to do one or two things at each one of those sites, it doesn't
take long to start to eat away at the dollars. In addition we have a variety of things that we must
do that are included in development contracts with developers. So as they come to town and
they plat these properties, the Degler farm. The Luigi Bernardi farm. The Jeurissen farm and
they come in, Town & Country, Rottlund Homes, when they get their plat or a subdivision
approval, we go, we enter into a development contract with them. They have to perform certain
things and we have to perform certain things and as a part of that development contract we've
told at least 3 of those folks that we're going to build trails, or pay for trails that they're going to
build. So those are marks on your ledger for future dates that you're going to have to, those bills
are going to come to you and we'll have to pay those bills so we have to insert those, and we'll do
that tonight. We don't have exact estimates. We'll set some place holders but there are at least 3
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
3
and when I think about it, possibly 4 of those major trail segments coming up. These are not
small investments. We're talking a couple hundred thousand dollars each. The one with the
bridge is going to be a couple hundred thousand dollars for a trail and $150,000 for a bridge so
that will take a single year's investment to make that part of our comprehensive trail plan happen.
So with that I'd like to hear from, some ideas from the commission. Hear from the audience and
then we'll get into the details of the CIP process.
Stolar: Okay, great. We're going to see if there's any urgent commission member questions
before we start it and then I'll invite Todd to come up and speak. Anything before Todd speaks?
Okay. Todd, you wanted to address us on this topic?
Todd Neils: Thank you Chair Stolar. Once again my name is Todd Neils. I'm the President of
the Little League here in Chanhassen, serving all of District 112. Chanhassen, Chaska and
Victoria. For fear of you being tired of seeing my face all the time, I've also brought a guest with
me. Ann Voliss who is the Secretary of the Little League and many of you know was
spearheaded our effort to win the State championship in softball and will speak a little bit about
that this year. And I give her full credit for that. I want to start by thanking the commission on
the expenditure that they made this year for Lake Ann Park. I've talked to Mr. Hoffman on
several occasions over the last several months, and as recently as last week to look at the dugouts
that are being put in I believe at the end of this month. The new trail that was put in to
accommodate foot traffic and so on and so forth through the park. So again I'd like to thank you
all for that additional expenditure to the CIP. In listening to many of Dr. Jennings presentations
over the last several months about the pending school referendum, it's become quite clear that
this community is going to grow quite large very fast with the addition of the 312 project that is
bisecting our community and the new high school. We're going to see, as we stated about a year
and a half ago, a tremendous need for additional field space. Because of that reason I would
implore the commission to seek additional land in the community for additional large park
spaces such as Lake Ann and Bandimere that can accommodate a, the local associations as we
try and bridge the new high school when it's built. And if it's built. And I do say hopefully it
will be built. So I would be, myself also speaking to Dr. Jennings as well as the City Council or
members of the City Council when given the opportunity, expressing our interest in the city's
participation in additional land purchases. Having said all that, I'd like to pass it over to Ann
who has some conversation she'd like to have with the commission about some additional
improvements that maybe we could see in the future to improve our park space. One second
Ann. One thing I would like to make a request about is, I know that in 2008 there's a CIP item
for $300,000 for lighting for Lake Ann. If there's any way, because of the growth in our program
and other associations, if there's any way to move that into the earlier part of the 2008 year so
that we can take full advantage of the new lighting at the space, that would be much appreciated
as well. Here's Ann Voliss. Thanks.
Ann Voliss: Thanks Todd and thanks commission and Mr. Hoffman. I should, for entertainment
value, a picture of our state champions. It was a thrill to play that tournament. We played it at
Lake Ann and it was a real show off time for us for that facility so…thanks to you and to the
people in front of you who built that great park. It was very nice and a great place to host a
tournament. As I appreciate the impact that this year's improvements will have and the lights in
'08, it's a nice moment to reflect on how our field space scheduling this year left us 3 open spots
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
4
for 60 teams to reschedule a game if there was a rain out or a make up game need, something
like that, so the lights are going to have a tremendous impact and I'll echo your thoughts about
the earlier in '08 that is feasible to complete, the bigger we can expand, the flexibility of that field
use. Softball in particular has demonstrated a 10% growth. Little League softball by familiarity
is not the program of choice in Minnesota, so when I look forward a couple years, this is going to
be fun and huge in impacting and stress that field schedule even more so I'll echo his thoughts
are appreciate your consideration of is there anywhere that we could build another set of fields.
Thinking a little more realistically, I appreciate Todd your consideration of, and Jerry you too, of
looking at Bluff Creek facilities a little bit, and I have what I hope are some light expenditures.
Just to bullet point and add to your list of considerations. On the super low end, managing who
plays at Field 1 and Field 2 would be a solution for us. If a team that is hitting, I'll use baseball
an example. 11 year old baseball now becomes a really fun and aggressive game and balls are
flying everywhere, and from a safety issue they fly into the playground at Bluff Creek if they're
playing on 1, so some small micro management like that would be very helpful and I appreciate
recording that. On an expenditure scale, could we consider some fence improvements there so
that we didn't have that scheduling constraint and could just place anybody there with more
flexibility, that would be my first bullet point. I'm telling you about backstop extensions and
dugout extensions that would protect balls from flying outside the field. If I look at that Bluff
Creek facility as a possible venue for more play and enhanced play, like what we've had the
privilege of at Lake Ann, then I start thinking about things like is a, respecting that it's a multi
use facility, is there room for one more field there? And I appreciate consideration of what the
soccer need and Lacrosse need, etc, etc, but is there space to build one more field? Even if it was
a junior sized field where not everyone could play but a portion of our registrants could play.
Batting cages. We have batting cages at Bandimere and at Lake Ann. Lake Ann is not available
specifically to the softball program without some purchasing of an attachment, but appreciate a
look at batting cages. That's a huge help to that program. And from there then the stuff gets fun.
I wish we had beautiful trees at Bluff Creek like we do at Lake Ann, and I wish we had enhanced
fan space. The recommendation as you host a state tournament for Little League or dream of
hosting the next level, regionals, is you need to have seating for at least 2,000 people and that
keeps going up from there. 5,000, etc.. The Twin Cities is a natural hub for people to come to
and it would be terrific to put Chanhassen on that list of options for regional play, but we need
fan space. And I'm going to quit there. We're getting kind of dreamy. But I hope I started small
with some good things that you can, including your considerations of the many, many ideas.
Stolar: Any questions for Ann or Todd?
Atkins: Could you host tournament games at Bluff Creek as well as Lake Ann?
Ann Voliss: Not state tournament. We had in-house league tournament play there. So just our
Chanhassen group of about 250 kids. The flashy fun stuff, state tournament, that was what we
hosted at Lake Ann.
Atkins: How many fields are at Bluff Creek?
Ann Voliss: There's 5. There's 5, and that's a beautiful open space too.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
5
Daniel: So Ann could you, with the fence improvements at Bluff, what were you specifically,
what are you talking about?
Ann Voliss: I speak just to the issue. I apologize, I'm not a fence expert but I'll speak to what
the problem is…and draw the obvious conclusion. If you are at Field 1, which is over by the
playground, the school's playground, and are hitting foul balls as a batter, they will land on Field
2. They're land on the playground. So right now the backstop, last pitch of protected fencing,
that could be enhanced. I've seen fields where's a lot bigger structure there. And then at the
dugout, there may be an opportunity there to extend those fences higher so that you really are
playing in a cage. I would not recommend that for other than 1 and 2. Fields 3, 4 and 5 have
some disbursement space and it's not an issue but it's the nature and placement of 1 and 2.
Daniel: Okay.
Stolar: Anyone else?
Murphy: When you mentioned junior sized fields, is that something that we have at any parks
right now or?
Ann Voliss: Your neighborhood parks, Meadow Green are youth sized fields that are in close
proximity to each other, but the kind of players that are naturally placed there, that works
beautifully because they're not hitting 200 foot bombers and that's a certain age group. I will say
that, I've never heard you guys restrict that but there's just kind of a natural 5 year old, 6 year
olds, no more than 8 year olds on those neighborhood parks. And it would, yeah it would be
reasonable to just choose again with the scheduling constraints a buddy, 2 fields together and put
a constraint on who can play there.
Kelly: How about City Center? Is that restricted to age? I know I only saw T-ball and coach
pitched at City Center but are those, you know can you play 9-10 on those fields?
Todd Neils: There was also machine pitch…
Kelly: There was machine pitch there too? Okay.
Todd Neils: But I think what we're referring to is you look at the space at the Bluff Creek
facility, it's effectively kitty corner to Field 4. If you put another diamond in that area, you may
have limited cross over but it's not likely that that's additionally if there's space along 5, adjacent
to 5.
Daniel: On Coulter Boulevard?
Todd Neils: Right. Again you'll have, you'll have, you pigeon hole yourself to the extent that
you only have 5 through 8 year olds, but really that's what we're using the facility for anyway.
We don't anticipate necessarily using it for older children that can hit into the swamp or into
another field endangering other children.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
6
Ann Voliss: And on the softball side, there's a point where the game changes to, it's an
infielder's game so there's more flexibility to put older softball players on fields that are tighter in
proximity to each other. So we'd have more room.
Murphy: Were there a shortage of fields for those junior players on, I know softball players right
now or is it more for the older kids? The problem really with the older kids?
Ann Voliss: Let me pause before I answer that. Some of our largest groups are, players are at 7
and 8 years old and it's really rewarding because they're heard about us and then we pull them in
and hope to keep them forever before they change their mind about wanting to play. I would
suggest that there is stress all the way through the system because, and I, I just have 3 years of
experience with this but I have watched in those 3 years the 8 year old players have hung around.
So there's this bubble of kids going through that is too big. So immediately it's a 7, 8, and 9 year
old problem, but in softball I have more players at 11-12 than I do at 7-8. So that's probably an
answer that says eventually it's a non-issue and we're very close to that. It's a non-issue. It's
everybody. Fair to say that at baseball, huge bubble at 7-8 and there's a lot of history with that
but the7-8 boys.
Todd Neils: Yeah, again it's extensive at 9 year olds as well, so our 9-10 year old program will
expand again this year. Anticipating that it will again at the 11-12 year old program 2 years from
now, so really across all age groups and continue to see…from the YMCA program I think that
you co-manage in addition to our own in-house program. So we're seeing a large bubble,
through those large pipelines that it goes through.
Ann Voliss: Okay, I'm supposed to talk about one more thing, but it's not part of the CIP. I
should have spoken at the visitor presentation. Do you mind if I take a 10 second detour? In
appreciation for the state tournament play, could you offer me some direction about how to ask
for a sign that says home of the 2006 Little League Softball State Champions? Is that a
reasonable request to this group or should I be redirected to someone else?
Hoffman: Do you want to put it on the edge of town or?
Ann Voliss: You know, there's a nice little Lake Ann Park. There's a Chanhassen city sign.
Daniel: Was the tournament won at Lake Ann?
Ann Voliss: It was won at Lake Ann.
Daniel: We really have, because we don't have a school system, or I don't think anything that I
remember in Little League…with a state champions, is that correct?
Hoffman: I don't know.
Daniel: Yeah, we don't know… And I would say if there's something like that, which would
certainly be a nice nod, I'd have to say at Lake Ann probably appropriate.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
7
Ann Voliss: I will, some optimistic caution. I think this will be a long string so pick a spot with
room for more and I appreciate you just considering it. That would be really fun but it would be
precedent setting so.
Hoffman: Thanks Ann.
Ann Voliss: Thank you.
Stolar: To kind of, on the sign issue, do you guys want to just talk with her and see what ideas
you can come up with? Okay. Is that okay with the commission? CIP comments. Start with
Anne.
Murphy: I'm still wondering about the, well the $30,000 that we had earmarked for the off leash
dog area we took off because, or we took out of the budget, right? Because we don't know where
we are with Carver right now? Or it's just on hold.
Hoffman: No, it's still there for this year. We changed out $20,000 of it for trails.
Stolar: 20 of the 50,000.
Murphy: 20 of 50 and we still have 30 earmarked? Okay.
Hoffman: Correct.
Stolar: But if they don't spend it this year.
Hoffman: It will have to be pushed out.
Stolar: It will have to be pushed out, right.
Hoffman: If you want to keep it.
Daniel: That's at Minnewashta right?
Hoffman: (Yes).
Stolar: Jack.
Spizale: The bill's coming due for the trails of these new neighborhoods, what's the dating on
that and how will that fit in with that budget?
Hoffman: Okay, let's go over each one. The timing is not exact but you can start to understand a
little bit as you watch the grading taking place in that area of town. The Preserve is the Gayle
and Lois farm. It includes significant section of trail from Lyman Boulevard down to the new
road which is being constructed right now, and it also includes a bridge, and that will most likely
occur in, right around 2008-2009. So if you pencil out those two dates. And I don't have an
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
8
estimate on the trail but I think you're safe to say that in total you're probably up around
$400,000 for that improvement.
Kelly: I'm sorry, that goes pretty from Audubon all the way down to close to 101 on Lyman? It
will cross over the new Lyman.
Hoffman: It goes from Lyman Boulevard at Audubon, south along the creek to the new what is
called the east/west collector road. And then just a little bit beyond. So it's all south of Lyman,
and that includes a bridge going up and over the creek in that area. There's also another trail
called the Liberty at Creekside trail which picks up at that point, and this is the Jeurissen farm
and Liberty at Creekside is by Town & Country Homes. It takes, it leaves off where the
Preserve, or it starts up where the Preserve leaves off. It travels south and then back east and to
the bridge at Highway 212. And then it will continue on to the bridge at a future point. So this
is, these are the final links of the Bluff Creek trail that is in place today from Lyman Boulevard
north to Highway 41. And that trail again is probably around 2009 by the time we get it built.
They get it built and they turn in a bill, and that's probably half of that cost. $200,000. Those are
those two. Then we have the Rice Marsh Lake Park trail, as a part of 212 in Eden Prairie you
saw along Bearpath and the new Lakeside development. They're building a trail. It will go
through an underpass that is being constructed today. You can go out there and see it if you want
to take a field trip and drive into the old apartments and then drive through the back and you can
walk up on the berm of Highway 212 and you look to your right and you'll see the underpass.
When that comes north, or when that gets built, we need to pick up our section of trail and come
all the way around Rice Marsh and then connect up. This is not in the development contract but
it's just one of those things where you're going to have this underpass, this trail leading to it and
no trail is going either east or west. West into Chanhassen or east into Eden Prairie so there's
going to be some pressure to have that built.
Daniel: Is that on the east side of Rice Marsh, as you come around up the…trail that comes to an
abrupt end?
Hoffman: Yep.
Daniel: And then it picks up with the, it's blank for about 100 feet and then.
Hoffman: Then it stops so…
Daniel: …okay then it goes up to, have you seen or have you talked to Eden Prairie's park and
do they have to stay rounding the lake? ….worked out yet.
Hoffman: And then you'll go up down, then back down through that park that's over there in the
Eden Prairie side. And on our side we'll go all the way around the south and the west side of
Rice Marsh and connect up to the trail that is currently at Mission Hills. So probably again 2009.
Perhaps 2010 and probably in that upper $300,000, $350,000 range. Pioneer Pass Park is a park
that is coming on line as a part of the 2005 MUSA area. It's on the Sever Peterson farm. It's the
4 acre park. The deal is not yet completely done. The original developer that came before the
city and the owner split, parted ways. There's a second developer looking at acquiring that
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
9
property. The entire property and platting the homes. When they do that, we're going to have a
4 acre park in the middle of an urbanizing area with probably some 4,000 residents moving in
over the next 5 years and they're going to be looking at us to finish that park. 4 acre park. You
can throw anywhere from $100 to $300,000 at it and you can do that probably in a 2009-2010
area.
Stolar: Does that include the cost of the land?
Hoffman: The land is, no cost for the land. It will be for the facilities.
Stolar: Okay.
Hoffman: So you're going to get balled up coming around 2009 with a lot of fun things that need
to get done. Those are the major areas that are on the horizon. That are known to date and then
beyond that, I can take some time and start talking about individual improvements. And to keep
it somewhat focused, why don't we just take a look at what we've brought forward for next year.
Stolar: Can I say real quick Todd? So our current balance projected at the end of this year is
what? The fund.
Hoffman: Current park dedication balance?
Stolar: Yeah.
Hoffman: Don't have that for you. Don't know.
Stolar: Do we know what it was at the beginning of the year?
Hoffman: I don't know here. I don't have that.
Stolar: Can we get that? Again it's easier for me to even make any of these decisions to know
here's our balance. Here's our expected revenues and here's our expenditures. Because that way
we can look at the balance, because you're talking about you know another 8, 750 in 2009 for
example. But if we expect to get $600,000 in and we have a balance of $2 million, that's a lot
different than we expect $400,000 in and we have a balance of $300,000. It makes a different
statement on what we do. Now I understand we're going to talk a little bit different later, but also
that helps.
Hoffman: Correct. Okay. The 2007 CIP that was originally before you was 405. That was off
of the old 5 year CIP. The recommending the deletion of Arboretum Park, Business Park trail
for $190,000 then adding the following items. Lake Ann Parkview picnic shelter at $95,000.
Power Hill Park trail at $75,000. Tennis court repair and that will repair the remaining course
that we have in town. We finished half of them this year at $45,000. And then a contribution to
the middle school, Minnetonka Middle School West tennis court. They're having a, trying to put
together an initiative to build 6 additional courts out at that facility for $30,000 contributions.
You add all those things up, it's $460,000 with the inclusion of the, other items that are on the
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
10
back page. So if you go to page 2. So there's a start for 2007. And then to continue on, you just
flip the page open and you look at 2008, 2009, 2010 and then 2011 is blank. Getting back to
Glenn's question, the fund is somewhat fluid and it's not short of cash right now. The $400,000
is a somewhat, well mildly conservative but still aggressive CIP. You always want to plan for
the future. There's going to be some things that come in there and we're going to take a hit on, so
yes, knowing the exact balance at this point might satisfy some curiosities but if we're going to
set forth a $400,000 level per year, then you kind of know what basis we're starting from.
Obviously at some point park dedication dollars are going to dry up and it's really not our goal to
spend them all today. It's our goal to have planned manage growth in our park facility and at
some point when those dollars are said and done, our hope is that we're pretty well fully
developed in our parks and trail system and then you're just left with management at that point.
Or maintenance.
Spizale: So Todd basically with this budget we're going to be basically done with the
playground, updating the playground equipment. So we're done with that, basically done with
that phase.
Hoffman: For the most part. For the oldest playgrounds, yep.
Spizale: It almost seems like with all these trails and expansions, one of our natural goals would
be, this is obviously just going to happen. One of the natural goals would be to, you know finish
the trails and expanding the trails, for one. It just seems like something that will be happening in
the next 2 to 3 years.
Daniel: Yeah, that's what CIP also, being…guess as well, there's some discussion on acquisition
of land for the expansion of parks beyond what we are getting out of our existing projects in
place.
Spizale: Todd what about that one piece of land we bought south of 212, west of 101? Is that
just kind of a natural piece?
Hoffman: It was purchased on the premise of the open space preservation. It's 32 acres of oak
woods. You know the passive park.
Spizale: Okay. That's what it always will be, right?
Hoffman: We hope so.
Daniel: Is there an access point to it?
Hoffman: Not yet. There will be when, that side of Highway 212 is the 2010 MUSA,
Metropolitan Urban Service Area. So 2010 will come and there'll be streets and neighborhoods
built back there so.
Spizale: Should there be a piece of land bought in that area for baseball parks and different
things?
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
11
Hoffman: Well you have Bandimere right across the street and there's limited land left.
Something to keep in mind that the annual CIP is probably not the place to go to to buy land.
You're going to have to find, with the help of the council, some other funding source to take on a
piece of land at this time. Land is not as cheap as it used to be. It's going to be a significant
expenditure to make that happen, if the community wants to make that happen. We've gotten
some very good deals up to this point and now with land at $100,000 to $200,000 per acre, it's
going to take some significant bill, money that this fund does not have.
Stolar: Steve.
Hoffman: Unless you want to do nothing for the next 5 years and put all $2 million into land.
You can try that tact.
Scharfenberg: Todd, with respect to the trail systems that you talked about coming on in 2008-
2009. Am I wrong in that in looking at that and allocating dollars, if we're allocating something
in the neighborhood of $400,000 every year, that we're using up the majority of that money
buying trails? Or building trails.
Hoffman: Correct. Correct, you're not wrong.
Scharfenberg: Okay. So the other things that we have on here, I know the warming house and
stuff we've talked about in the past and, but are we talking about deleting some of those items?
Hoffman: Absolutely.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Projects, and especially a 5 year CIP are…take on additional
responsibilities and so we're going to be moving these things around. That's our job to do that.
Stolar: Paula.
Atkins: Yeah I don't, for instance the Minnetonka Middle School West tennis court project
contribution, I don't believe I saw that before tonight, right? So there's a few things on here that
don't look familiar to me from last time I looked at this.
Daniel: That's something that just came up over the last, since the last meeting.
Atkins: Yeah, okay. We should probably talk about moving the lights up. The lighting for the
fields up maybe. And how do we go about recommending that we acquire some more land? Do
we make a recommendation to the City Council?
Hoffman: Someone makes the motion and somebody seconds it and they vote.
Stolar: What I'd like to do is defer that because we have a joint meeting with City Council in
September and I'd like to, if I may, place that discussion. Land acquisition will be one of the
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
12
topics. Yeah, I think we will still talk about something and maybe make a motion, but let's put it
under that heading.
Kelly: But to Paula's point, is it possible to build lights prior to the 2008 Little League season
out at Lake Ann?
Hoffman: If you want to put it in the 2007 budget.
Kelly: But it can't stay in the 2008 budget and lights can't be built the first half of the year? Is
the only way lights can be available in 2008 is to actually move the $300,000 to 2007?
Hoffman: Correct.
Stolar: I'm sorry Paula, it seemed like you had another question.
Atkins: No, I was going to talk about, I just was looking at the Roundhouse Park tennis court
just because I know we had some interest in that. Some letters. We heard from some people.
Was that approved? I don't remember if it was. Because we've had a lot of discussion about
building new tennis courts in the last couple years.
Hoffman: Right now it's in 2009 on the $100,000.
Atkins: So that's pretty far ahead.
Kelly: …what did the Arboretum trail, what was that going to connect from and to?
Hoffman: It connects from where the Lifetime Fitness trail stops south of the hotel. The
Holiday Inn Express. And then it goes through the oak trees and then back around to the
neighborhood that comes in off of the south side of that wetland, so that trail, there's 100 acres of
property there. The trail is in 4 quarters and this is the southwest quarter of the trail to wrap it
around and make the whole circle. You remember the name of that neighborhood?
Ruegemer: Isn't it Trotters Ridge?
Hoffman: That's right, Trotters Ridge development.
Kelly: Right across and off of Galpin?
Hoffman: Galpin.
Kelly: Because right now the trail I hit, you got up to Holiday Inn. It goes down and you cross
Coulter and then the trail pops out right on Galpin.
Hoffman: Yep.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
13
Kelly: And you're saying now it would go south, a little bit more south on Galpin and then kind
of go through.
Hoffman: Have you ever taken that dead end trail back in Trotters Ridge?
Kelly: No, because it's dead end. I do know what you're talking about.
Hoffman: Once the dead end, it will start there and pick up and go over.
Kelly: Alright. Alright.
Hoffman: And we're waiting, again that's a development contract driven improvement. We're
waiting for that final lot to develop which is Lot 12. When they have a buyer, then they need to
build our section of trail and we need to pay for it.
Kelly: Alright.
Stolar: So that most likely wouldn't be before 2009?
Hoffman: Yeah it's just, you know it could happen tomorrow. It's just one of those things we
just keep kind of pushing it off. We always try to keep it out there. Just in a little shadow area.
A couple years out because if somebody buys it, it will take a while for them to build it and get
the project done and…
Kelly: And the 101 north trail, that pretty much just goes from Pleasant View to.
Hoffman: Minnetonka/Eden Prairie.
Kelly: Okay. It's a pretty short.
Hoffman: Short. About a final, it's a missing link.
Kelly: Right, right. Yep.
Daniel: That goes out to Vinehill, correct? Or as a wrap around?
Ruegemer: Is it Vinehill or Town Line?
Daniel: Oh Town Line. Town Line then turns, curves into Vinehill.
Kelly: I mean my only concern with the lights is, I mean I think adding lights essentially adds 4
fields and I would just hate to see the lights get pushed, if, pushed out because of these new trails
and they'd be coming in 2009 because that's such a big ticket item. If those bills come back and
say the lights getting pushed out so I don't know. But I don't know if there's any room to move.
Yeah I agree with, it'd kind of be great to have those lights available for play 2008 and you said
the only way we can do that is to have it in the 2007 budget. I just don't know if there's, but
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
14
that's the concern I have. It'd be nice, it'd be nice to have those lights to turn on May 1st, 2008
for Little League play if possible.
Hoffman: If you keep them in 2008, they'll be turned on May 1st, 2009. Or for fall.
Ruegemer: Or October 1st.
Kelly: Is it just how budget works that, or is it just that you can't physically put lights in the
ground in February and March?
Hoffman: It's the construction season. It's a process. To have a bid opening and get the lights in
and done by the time it's not, it wouldn't be impossible but… And it's something you find on an
annual basis. Improvements that were budgeted in 2000, for 2007 typically come available for
the 2008 season because it's just, you're working through a construction season. You're
wrapping things up and I think most of you have been around to see that. It's playgrounds.
…you're lucky to get them in by August and get a little bit of use…for next spring. For ballfield
improvements, that's even more evident because their season quits in the middle of summer.
Daniel: Say Todd for Sugarbush Park, is that a toddler playground?
Hoffman: All the additions would be toddler playgrounds.
Daniel: Okay.
Hoffman: Typically neighborhoods select the older kids for their first improvement and then the
second improvement is for the younger kids. To frame your conversation even tighter tonight,
really what you need to, obviously you need to agree on a 2007 recommendation that needs to go
to the Finance Director tomorrow, and then up to the City Council. For 2008 and beyond, you
can start talking to each other and letting me know some of your values and what, obviously you
support these development contracts that we have, and then I can go forward and put that down
on paper. I tend not to do that without a conversation at the commission level because if I go
ahead and just write it out, then the commission says it looks great. Done deal and conversation
seems to be somewhat limited so, I purposely don't do that before we have a conversation here to
talk about where you want to place the emphasis. Hear from people from the community and
then move forward.
Stolar: Todd, just a couple other quick questions. The lights. I know I've asked this before. Do
we have those by for 2 fields right? Or 3?
Hoffman: Lights?
Stolar: Yeah. I mean sorry, 2 parks.
Hoffman: Right now they're, it's just 4 fields. It could be any parks. Bandimere and Lake Ann
or Lake Ann or just Bandimere. It's not been designated.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
15
Stolar: So again, and partly to the point you guys were making. If we can even pull 2 fields
forward that are economic to do so let's say the 2 fields at Bandimere. So we talked about before
how you've got to group them together. You don't want to sit here and do you know one at Lake
Ann and one there and then you have to go to the next year and do the same thing. But would 2
be, you know splitting that into 2 and just get 2 fields done in 2007 be a logical cut off.
Hoffman: Sure. We only have 3 lit fields in the community. We lit one individually in about
1987, and we lit the other two at Lake Ann in approximately '95.
Stolar: And from your perspective, Todd Neils, do you feel that you know, would that help or is
that, you know if we add a couple more fields lit in a particular area.
Todd Neils: No…I guess I've got to get up there. I think that it would go a long way in helping
the growth as we see it in the program. You know we're going to see major changes internally in
our program over the next several years. To be more competitive on a regional level, both in
baseball and softball. To add lights will give us just additional framework for that. So if there's
any way you can light into it, as you're suggesting, by doing half and half, you know that's
definitely we think what a great solution. But that's up to the commission to decide.
Stolar: Okay, thank you. And then, I think that was it on the CIP for 2007. Any other questions
on that?
Murphy: I have one more quick question on the funding for the off leash dog area. If they don't
begin construction on that in 2007, when does that money become lost out of that?
Hoffman: December 31st.
Murphy: Of 2007?
Hoffman: (Yes).
Murphy: Okay. So not this year, next year. Okay.
Hoffman: This year.
Murphy: This year?
Stolar: December 31st, 2006.
Hoffman: Excuse me, yes. This year.
Stolar: When you say it becomes lost, we can always add. First of all the money doesn't go
away because it sits there in the CIP fund, correct?
Hoffman: The item goes away.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
16
Stolar: The item goes away and we can always add it at another time.
Murphy: But what would be the, I guess the condition that would make it, just that Carver isn't
going to begin the construction or there's no other fund so we're not going to, I mean what, how
would we know that it's going to fall off the budget I guess? Just the fact that nothing's
happening with it? But what if they say sometime in 2007 we're going to start?
Hoffman: Then you're going to have to make a decision to make a recommendation to the
council to hold that money over.
Murphy: Okay.
Stolar: So what I'd like to do, if there's no objection, why don't we just real quick, we have a
recommendation in front of us which is the modified 2007 CIP. For the 460. And I guess I
would look to see, is there, are there any proposed changes to that before we take a motion?
Kelly: I wouldn't, I do have, I wouldn't mind seeing at least the $150,000 of the athletic fields go
into 2007 and if we need to offset that cost, moving Highway 101 to 2008. The thought there is
that it is a small piece of trail. We've gone so long without a trail on 101 as it is and there, I just
think that, I don't know, that would be my preference. To move 2 fields to 2007. If we need to
offset the cost, maybe push out 101 north trail a year. Or potentially put 3 totlots.
Stolar: Okay does anyone, tonight I'm going to leave this a little bit more informal. I tend to
agree with Tom and would like to see that also and I would push potentially, yeah it depends on
if we want to try and keep it under 5, I would push out one of the totlots, if that makes sense. I'm
going to look to you Todd. If it's easier to just do all 3, then I'd rather just spend the money but if
they're unique items then I would just take one and push it out, and that would give us 144 of the
150 offset so we're a little bit higher.
Hoffman: No, you could do 2 or 3. The only hard part is picking which one to knock off and
then when your friends find out you knocked that one off.
Daniel: Because those are your neighbors.
Hoffman: In that neighborhood.
Scharfenberg: Like the 101 trail.
Stolar: Well the 101 trail I have no problems to talk to my neighbors about that one. No
problem at all.
Murphy: Are there any other ramifications though with pushing that off? Is it somewhat started
one or?
Hoffman: No.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
17
Murphy: No.
Stolar: You go now. You get to the end there and you either go on Pleasant View and then go
up the back way and you get back on it, or if you're risky you go up on 101. Or if you want to do
a more exciting way, you go across to Eden Prairie. Go up on their trail then come back across
but you can get there. By all those ways.
Daniel: Was there any prior discussion Todd with anyone from the State or the County,
whoever's in control now of 101 recently here with regards to that trail and expansion of that
trail?
Hoffman: Nobody else is going to build it and we want to build it. We just get a Limited Use
Permit and go ahead and construct it within the right-of-way. It's still State right-of-way.
Daniel: Okay.
Stolar: And you know, it is something that would be great. It would connect, it would be a nice
little connection but is it, I share Tom's concern that if we don't, if we keep pushing the lights off,
if we don't start making some motion to it, it is an easier way than buying land capacity. Then
we should do that and we do have alternatives for the 101, but eventually it would be nice to be
able to have people to be able to connect into the Minnetonka trails there. So we're talking about
a year swap.
Murphy: And it doesn't sound like we'd be able to get any land for additional fields anytime
soon so.
Stolar: I think we're really starting here again, I want to make sure we do something that makes
sense from just the standpoint for your teams so we aren't causing extra work but if we can do a
couple of fields and get a couple more lit. That was one thing to remember, we talked about this
being athletic, just to make a point. We talked about athletic fields. Not necessarily ballfields,
so maybe one soccer field and one ballfield.
Hoffman: Okay, so we shift $114,000 plus 1 or 2 of the playground additions? One only gets
you to 144. We're initially starting out high at 460.
Scharfenberg: Has there been any discussion or have you been approached Todd by anyone out
of, in or around Roundhouse, Sugarbush or Power Hill Park in regards to the addition of a
toddler park?
Hoffman: Not specifically. I mean people mention it when you're out and about talking to them,
it'd be nice to have. Each one of them was built in a container that had room for the expansion.
So I can guarantee you just about every day that somebody goes to the park they wonder when
will that city finish off that second part of the trail. Or second part of the playground.
Stolar: Let me ask another question. Is there any relation at all to the playground versus any of
the trail at Power Hill? Like does this trail end up at that container? Is there anything?
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
18
Scharfenberg: It's just part of the new construction with the new, they're building all those new
homes back there so it's a new trail for those new homes that are going in there.
Stolar: To get into Power Hill.
Scharfenberg: To get into Power Hill.
Hoffman: And to come to the playground, so it does come out to the playground.
Stolar: The one thing I would say, you know just saying nail down Power Hill and we'll get the
playground and the trail and then the other two we'll defer to the next year.
Hoffman: Okay, that would work.
Scharfenberg: I mean being somebody that lives in that neighborhood and my kids use that
park, I don't know that anybody realizes that that container was meant to put in different, I mean
there's been so much turnover and stuff that that was meant to be a little kids, an addition that
they're going to put in a little kids playground into that facility. I mean the kids that go there and
play now are little kids that use it you know as a big time park anyway. So I think it's probably
the same with all the playgrounds there that, I mean people adapt and the kids use the equipment
as it is and.
Hoffman: Here's something to think about on these second phases. You either need to do them
in the next, the City needs to do them in the next 2 or 3 years or you're just going to leave them
because the playground, the existing playground and the current playground's going to get so old
that you're not going to want to match it with new playground, or you're going to be doing a flip
flop. You're going to want to let that stuff get so old that you replace it with either a Phase I or
Phase II again in the future.
Daniel: Yeah, we end too making a switch on a recommendation at least we make a
commitment if we are pushing out those toddler, 3 toddler parks for 2008. Understand
everything's still fluid, as Todd says, dynamically we can change it but.
Spizale: You know the other thing too is, we're spending a lot of money on tennis also. I would
take it, if I remember correctly that they really needed to be repaired. They're in dire need of
repair, right?
Hoffman: Yes. Our philosophy on tennis courts, we've done very few of them and regional or
centrally located facilities. And then we try to keep them up because if they're not in decent
condition, people complain constantly and they don't want to play on it anyway. So then you
have a capital improvement that's not playable and really doesn't do anyone any good. We've got
a number of very nice compliments about the refurbished tennis courts this year.
Spizale: And the Minnetonka Middle School West?
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
19
Hoffman: It's just an unknown. They're going to spend a quarter million dollars. Middle School
West is one of those facilities that we say alright everybody that moved up in that neighborhood,
we're not going to give you a park because Middle School West is your park, and so go over
there to Middle School West and have a good time. Play tennis, and so when they, this is a
parent organization that's trying to, parent group that's trying to get these tennis courts built
because they had 110 girls come out for next year tennis and they put them on two tennis courts.
And it's very difficult to teach 110 girls, 9th grade girls or high school girls on those tennis courts
so.
Spizale: And the tennis courts by the high school are used also for that?
Hoffman: Yeah, they're used for the high school so they're down Highway 7. They're trying to
do 8 tennis courts at Middle School East and Middle School West for a quarter million dollars
apiece. That's their goal. They came and talked to us about Middle School West because it's in
our community and we use it as a neighborhood park and I said I would make a recommendation
to at least contribute $30,000 to the effort. It would be similar to what we're doing with the
playground at…and when they're all said and done, they're going to send us a bill for $30,000 for
our contribution to their new playground. Which is used during the day for the school and then
used in the evening as a community park site. It's difficult. You've just got to push things
around and get the one year and then we'll…
Stolar: It sounds like, just to try and move this along, we have a proposal on the floor here to
move half the lighting from 2008 to 2007. To move the 101 trail connector, trail connection to
2008, and I don't know Jeff, were you suggesting we move all of the playground Phase II to 2008
then?
Daniel: Well that would get us closer to that $400,000 bogey.
Stolar: Right, correct. Okay.
Daniel: Yeah, and then based off of my observation, at least one with Sugarbush, and I might be
off base on this but it gets used but certainly not at the level of some of the other parks, so I think
that wouldn't hurt to delay and if we had to make a decision, that's just my own observation on
Sugarbush. I can't speak on behalf of Power Hill, which Steve can certainly do. Or Roundhouse.
Stolar: So let me put that on the table first, so the switch would be, as I've mentioned, half the
athletic field split between, or athletic field lighting 2007 and 2008 split evenly. 101 trail 2008.
Phase II playgrounds, 2008. That would get us to, I believe it's 406 for 2007. I have to check on
my math here.
Hoffman: Got it?
Stolar: We're adding 150 and taking away 204 so, net savings of 54 off the 460. Should we
move that forward?
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
20
Kelly: So then in 2008 we would have 150 again for athletic fields. We have 90,000 so we're at
240 for the 3 totlots, and then we have 114 for that, for the 101 trail which brings us to I think
like 364.
Stolar: Correct. And since we know we have a potential $200,000 hitting there, of new trails
potentially in 2008, that gives us some wiggle room. We won't talk about 2009 yet. That one's
ugly.
Hoffman: We'll get there soon enough.
Stolar: Yeah. Can I have a motion for the 2007 CIP?
Kelly: I make the motion for the changes to the 2007 CIP.
Hoffman: Now that we're on the record, why don't you go ahead and just read the items in that
group please.
Stolar: Do you want me to do it or do you want to?
Kelly: Yeah, why don't you do it.
Stolar: Okay, we have the athletic field lighting, half of the athletic field, proposed athletic field
lighting, 2 fields for $150,000. Lake Ann Park Parkview Picnic Shelter, 95. Power Hill Trail 75.
Tennis court repair, 45. Minnetonka Middle School West Tennis Court Project Contribution,
30,000. Picnic tables and park benches, 6,000. Trees, 5,000 for a total of $406,000. That would
be the 2007 recommendation. Can I have a second?
Murphy: Second.
Stolar: Any further discussion?
Kelly moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
approval of the following items for the 2007 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development
Capital Improvement Program:
Lighting of 2 Athletic Fields $150,000
Lake Ann Park Parkview Picnic Shelter $95,000
Power Hill Park Trail $75,000
Tennis Court Repair $45,000
Minnetonka Middle School West Tennis
Court Project Contribution $30,000
Picnic Tables/Park Benches (Annual) $6,000
Trees (Annual) $5,000
Total $406,000
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
21
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Stolar: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Thanks Todd and Ann. Appreciate
your estimates. And then you'll update the 2008, 09.
Hoffman: And I'll bring that back in September.
Stolar: Why don't you just push all the trails into 11 since we have nothing there. Thanks again.
Hoffman: Which fields, 2 and 3?
Todd Neils: 2 and 3 would be great.
Stolar: I'm going to ask we consider one other athletic field besides baseball because soccer
plays in fall and they could use the extended hours too. Consider. Didn't say for sure.
Todd Neils: I know that, excuse me. I know it's football also uses some of those fields so, yeah
I think you can get, when we talk to Harry Campbell about this who runs our soccer program but
the, all of the fields at Lake Ann you can do a use at some point. But, either football or soccer on
the outfield grass.
Stolar: Oh, of the baseball fields.
Hoffman: 4 and 5 play football.
Stolar: So as long as we get dual use out of it, that's good.
Todd Neils: So 2 and 3, you could get dual use out of that by playing soccer or I think football
there as well, maybe.
Hoffman: 2's too small. 3's marginal. They're the smallest of the fields that are remaining. The
largest fields that are remaining unlit are 6 and a soccer.
Stolar: Well I encourage you guys to work together.
Hoffman: We'll talk about it.
RECREATION PROGRAMS:
DAVE HUFFMAN 5K MEMORIAL RUN.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Stolar. The 7th Annual Dave Huffman Memorial 5K Run and Walk
is coming up here September 9th. We've been busy for about the last oh 3-4 months. Kind of
work out the details for that. Kathy is definitely coming back again this year. Jessica, their
daughter is going to school at the University of Minnesota so she'll be in town and their son Jack
is going to be staying back in the Chicago area to attend a function. Kathy's mom is also coming
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
22
in to town again this year for the race so, as well as some other people as well for that. It's been,
obviously it's been advertised on our web site. We've run direct postcard mailings. We'd had
ads in Vikings game day magazines and some other things with the Vikings. We have
information out with flyers and that sort of thing as well. Meeting again with Mike Wegler, our
Street Superintendent and Ross Gullickson, our Chanhassen Sergeant tomorrow morning at
11:00 to again kind of go over a lot of the details of the race specific to intersections with cones
and sign placement. And so we'll go through all of that again to make sure that everything is
progressing as it needs to be. The course was recertified on August 8th to regular starting at kind
of the north part of the parking, more on the grass. We're going to be moving out to Kerber
Boulevard and riding on the asphalt surface or the hard surface so, we're trying to get rid of some
of those transition points and grassy type of areas where we have turned ankles and it's better for
us to be on hard surface too with, we had wheelchair entries last year and we had at least 3, 3 or
4 entries last year so I imagine they'll, we need to anticipate that again this year so that was one
of the reasons for the change. I think we can, on Kerber Boulevard too, we want to keep it down.
We can certainly close the whole street, which we've talked about doing from about Santa Vera
down to West 78th Street, or else we can probably run on one half of the road too if we close it
off from the starting line all the way down West 78th Street so it looks like…with Mike and Ross
but I would anticipate the road being closed for the start of the race from Santa Vera down to
West 78th Street for that. T-shirts have been ordered with that. They should be printed this week
or first part of next week, so we'll be getting those in. We went with kind of a, kind of a yellow
this year. Look of the biker.
Stolar: Lance Armstrong?
Ruegemer: Lance Armstrong yellow. It's kind of that color roughly. A little bit brighter. With
that so those should be here first part of next week, middle part of next week. Worked on the
goody bags again. Angela Lawlon with the Mary Kay is working on that item. Working with
the local businesses and Chamber members for that. The kids run we did move up at least a half
hour to 9:45 to kind of keep the flow of the event going and we'll utilize the interior of our park
to get the kids race after that as well. So we're going to be meeting again next week on Tuesday
again for another race and we've been meeting probably weekly after that leading up to the race
itself so. So have some work to do on that but things are progressing with that and hopefully
we'll have decent weather again this year for it.
Stolar: Okay. Any questions for Jerry?
Kelly: A couple things for changing the route to get it off the grass, because that left turn by the
city, that was pretty tight. My only kind of thing that kind of happened last year was the people
that are reading off times mid race, if there could be some coaching with them. I mean last year
one boy scout was looking at the watch and not saying a word. That didn't help to. I mean he
knew how fast I was going but I didn't. And then the other guy was about a minute or so off so,
so if there could be some coaching but with the splits would be. Besides that I thought it was
great.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
23
Atkins: You know at Excelsior at the Firecracker Run they have a clock there at the half way
point. Flashing tenths of seconds. I don't know where they get it. It's a big square thing. It's
kind of.
Ruegemer: We talked to our Race Director about that too. If there's something we can sink you
know that shows the time.
Stolar: And in fact actually they had, didn't they have at the kids triathlon, they had a clock at
the end there.
Kelly: Yep.
Stolar: Maybe you can borrow it from Todd.
Daniel: Jerry, what's the route again?
Ruegemer: What's the route?
Daniel: I know you're still from Lake Ann and obviously it's changed.
Ruegemer: Yeah.
Hoffman: Kerber, Main Street. Down Main Street to Frontier. Big Horn.
Ruegemer: Yeah, we go past Paula's house.
Hoffman: And then back around up Kerber. Lot of hills.
Kelly: Oh it was easy last year. It's a couple hills on Frontier and Big Horn but you've got to do
something about that hill on Kerber.
Stolar: That's your first of the run.
Kelly: And then you've got to deal with the one coming out. It gets you one way or another.
Atkins: And it's no better backwards either.
Ruegemer: Have you run it that way? We had talked about that.
Atkins: I've done it both ways.
Ruegemer: And your opinion?
Atkins: Probably going up Frontier is the worst. Worst than going up Kerber.
Ruegemer: Really?
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
24
Atkins: Yeah. You'd have to ask Jack…
Hoffman: It celebrates the hilly nature of Chan.
Atkins: It does. Beautiful scenery.
Murphy: And how far is the children's run?
Kelly: It's like a quarter and a half. There's about, approximate quarter mile run and
approximately a half mile run. How many entries you have so far?
Ruegemer: For the race?
Kelly: Yep.
Ruegemer: I'm not sure what it is. It's not tremendous numbers at this point but that's not.
Stolar: Thank you.
FALL PROGRAM UPDATE.
Ruegemer: This is an informational piece for the commission with the fall brochure came out oh
probably 3 weeks to a month ago now. Roughly for that. It's just kind of an informational piece
for the commission to take a look at the preschool programs and adult programs that we have
offered this coming fall. So we're working on the winter newsletter as well and that's due
December 12th.
Stolar: Thank you. Then we had our fifth item. We added the joint meeting with the City
Council.
DISCUSSION OF JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.
Stolar: And that's coming up September 14th. Unfortunately I will not be there. In fact I don't
think I get in until the, like 7:30 that night. But Todd and I were talking this past week and we
talked about how some of the things mentioned today, we need to talk about and I had mentioned
Todd, to me and I think it's about time we be bold, although I saw your email that says election
years are not good times to be bold. But to me it seems like based on the discussion I heard,
there are a few things that we think are out there that may require, and I'm going to be bold here,
a bonding referendum. And the things I heard today were, tonight were parkland acquisition.
Right, because we know we're going to be drawing, we know that the cost of parkland far
exceeds the collections of park dedication fees and yeah, we can do the analysis but Todd, I think
you and I had figured out, it's like one-third of what it needs to be to meet both our guideline for
parkland per density, and then the cost of land. See how much we charge per unit and then you
take that and say we need to have this much parkland for those types of units, we're about at a
half or a third of what it would take to actually get the parkland, and that doesn't include any
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
25
equipment or any trails or any of those things. So that's one thing is parkland acquisition. I think
the second one we heard tonight was, the trail acquisition because even the cost of building the
trails isn't necessarily keeping up with the park dedication fees. And I guess from previous
discussions, just to fill in the background, we're already near the top on the park dedication fees
and there's not going to be much field for increasing those. The third thing that I had talked to
Todd about was finishing our city parks, and we talk about generally finishing the parks but I'm
saying we've got a lot of things out there in the master plans on our city parks that we haven't
finished, whether it's City Center Park warming house or Lake Ann, creating a nicer stand in the
middle there of all the fields so there can be concessions, bathrooms, those sort of things and
some of those things that are in the master plan so to me that's kind of a third area. Question and
then of course previous meetings we heard a fourth area, amateur baseball field. So those seem
to be four really big things that if we wanted to do those we'd need additional sources of revenue.
They can't be park dedication fees. I don't know if there are things that are missing. A huge, you
know 20 acre dog park.
Daniel: I think too, and it's not necessarily just amateur baseball field. I think there are other
things that both Ann and Steve have brought up I think as well as hockey arena. I mean just in
general discussion. In conjunction with the school district. Things of those nature as well that
still need to be taken into consideration. And obviously that goes well beyond what we can
afford in the existing CIP revenues that we have so, that's something that certainly be put forth as
consideration down the road to the voters if they're willing to take a look at additional taxes. I
just worry about for this type of expansion of our park system.
Stolar: So the question is, is that a topic we want to bring up with the City Council at the joint
session saying there are these large capital investments in the community when we look at where
we're going to be that we might need to figure out a way, and then again we don't have to tell
them how to figure out the funding. We can just say these are needs out there. We can offer to
them, we'd be happy to prioritize them. Discuss them further, but you know if they say you're
not going to get any funding for this, it makes the decision easy. I would hope that wouldn't be
the discussion. The discussion would be investigate, prioritize because we know, so we listed
five things now, six things. We know that all of them are not possible. So maybe we would take
it on ourselves after the discussion to work with the community to figure out what the priorities
would be. Any other thoughts on, so that's one potential topic for the joint meeting. And Todd
maybe you and I would have to have a discussion on the side to prep for that since we don't have
a meeting between now and then.
Hoffman: Well, it really is, the commission talked with the council, it's just what you bring
forward to them, unless you want me to write something up.
Stolar: In previous ones we just had notes right that kind of captured this discussion. I guess
that would be the only thing that was helpful.
Hoffman: Yeah, and sometimes you do that as Chair or.
Stolar: And I can type something up and send it off to you.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
26
Hoffman: Yeah, this was the same conversation 11 years ago in 1995. It started at a capital
improvement conversation and the commission was faced with too many needs and wants and
not enough money in the bank. And so they struggled in 1993, '94, '95 and then in '95 they sat
here and they said alright, not only are we going to push forward our 1995 recommendation for
CIP or 1996, but we're going to recommend that the council go to a referendum to do these
things. Preserve open space, build out parks, build trails. At the time it was what, 7 miles of
trails. Six segments. To get a jump start on what was going on at that time they just felt really
swamped by the fact that they weren't moving ahead. Opportunities that they had lost and the
council approved that referendum proposal. In fact they went one step further. They added a
million dollars to the question and then sent it out to the voters and it was approved and moved
forward. I don't know what the flavor is or what the appetite is for a referendum today. And
many times when you see these park bonds paid off, that's the time to bring it back to the voters.
It's an appropriate time and we've got a few years left on this particular bond. We have a few
years left on that at this point before it's paid off. We also just refinanced those park bonds and
so we saved some money. Council was happy about that. Finance Director was happy about
that. City Manager was happy about that. So we saved some money there with that but you
know these are all good conversations and to Chair Stolar's point, you don't have to say this is
how you should do it. This is what we should do. What you need to have I think as a park
commission, an honest conversation with the council about look what's happening to our
community. Highway 212 development. Just the Town & Country development, have you seen
it on Audubon? That's 440 homes. That will be 1,000 to 1,200 people moving into this town in
the next 2 or 3 years. We've not seen this kind of growth since the mid 1990's. When Steve's
neighborhood went up and Joe Miller was in town building hundreds of homes. It's just been
fairly quiet since that time, so now we're going to see another growth spurt. You already know,
you're struggling, or your community is struggling with facility needs and now you're going to
add another 4,000 people in the next few years and you're going to tell these folks to move over
and make room or you need to make, the community needs to makes some additional
investments in our facilities. It's getting tougher to do primarily because of land prices, and then
also because construction costs continue to go up.
Stolar: So for now, so that I can type something up, some of the long term capital needs or ideas
that we have out there. Parkland acquisition, and we talked about that. We're running out of
space and growth of the community. The MUSA trail construction that you know each of these
new developments is going to need us to reimburse them for trails. To keep the trail system
going. The amateur baseball field. District 112 joint projects. The pool and the ice arena
specifically. The completion of current parks to the master plan. I know Todd brought some
pictures if we wanted to see them, of some of the things that are missing, and I'm focusing on
city parks right now but I know there's still a bunch of stuff in the neighborhood parks also
missing. And then the other thing I put down there, because I think this is what they did with
some extra money prior, did they populate the CIP fund for some maintenance, ongoing
maintenance? Was that part of it or not? Then that must have been Eden Prairie when we did
that. Eden Prairie we did that where we actually part of the referendum, I think it was roughly
around the same time. Might have been, they put it into their park and trail maintenance fund
too.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
27
Hoffman: We did some rehabilitation. Fairly extensive rehabilitations. 16 parks in 1996 so we
said your neighborhood's going to get a trail. Or your neighborhood park's going to get a trail.
Your neighborhood park's going to get an ice arena. So we did some of those things.
Stolar: So it's a completion of the city parks or completion of parks and according to master plan
we'd cover that type of activity. Okay. And then the other, first of all any other things on the
long term capital needs and then any other topics for the joint meeting?
Hoffman: It will be a half hour, 45 minutes. They meet with all other commissions prior to your
meeting so, try to keep it light.
Murphy: Did we ever, for that Lake Ann, we're talking about a concession around the ballfields
and then restrooms. Do we ever have an estimate, dollar estimate on that? No? Never?
Hoffman: $200,000 and up.
Murphy: Okay.
Stolar: So they're not in the CIP right now correct?
Daniel: That was confusion I had. I thought under the Lake Ann Park pavilion, that's not going
to be something, that's just basically a shelter.
Hoffman: That Lake Ann Park pavilion is a picnic shelter on top of the hill.
Daniel: That's on top, near the volleyball court.
Hoffman: Yeah. We're at capacity with our group picnics, weddings, family reunions now.
And this is a slab on grade shelter. It's at capacity.
Daniel: Similar to like you see down at Rice Marsh or.
Hoffman: Yeah, but much larger.
Stolar: And we won't have any facilities associated with it.
Hoffman: Water.
Stolar: Water. It would have the ability to have facilities added later or, I thought I read from
the minutes that there is the connection for sewer and.
Hoffman: Could. Yep, the easiest connection to make is underneath the baseball, future
concession stand site there because you have water running right underneath it, but we ran water
up to this Parkview area as well. And then there's a sewer grinder station down at Lake Ann
which services the beach building and you could go on for many of these, if you wanted to put
restrooms in.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
28
Stolar: But it'd be easier from the one that's right by the ballfields?
Hoffman: Ah yeah, and restrooms add $100,000 to your budget so. More or less.
Stolar: You know part of, and I apologize I wasn't at the meeting last month but you know
reading through the minutes, I just compare it to Bennett Park, which I know is not a park
district. You know we pay for Bennett Park, those of us who use it. We support through
donations and such, but the fact that they have that stand there, and unfortunately to say this
about my kids, they're more excited about getting their coupon for the concessions after the game
then they really are playing the game. And I would say if you look at the lines there, there's
much more of a rush going to the concession stand than going to the game so, to me having
something like that available for you know the people who are in the Chanhassen leagues I think
is really important. That's part of what I was thinking about when I talked about completion of
the city parks. You know let's finish out Lake Ann so that it becomes that kind of a place for the
kids to go. It just seems really sad that you have this, these tournaments and there's no place for
them to really go get a snack. No place to go to use the facility. They have to go run all the way
there. And certainly they can go to the beach side, but you know, it's a good distance. But that
would be part of what I'm talking about when I say completion of the parks. It's in the design to
be able to have that. Todd, I will draft something to send and I'll send it around, if people want
to add to it. I guess Steve, if you can coordinate for the meeting and stuff since I won't be there.
Scharfenberg: Okay.
Hoffman: Maybe you should send it to your fellow commissioners since you won't be here
representing the list.
Spizale: I've got a question on the concession stand. Is that a money making or money losing
type of thing?
Stolar: For Bennett Park? I mean Bennett Park's a not for profit so I don't know what, I'm not on
the board so I don't see the financials but I would assume that they probably break even. I don't
know what do we do, we actually make money at the concession at Lake Ann right?
Hoffman: Yeah. It's an experience enhancing endeavor. You're never going to pay back the
cost of the building.
Stolar: Right.
Spizale: But it's not a losing.
Hoffman: Well once you take out the building, yeah you can make money or pay for it.
Stolar: And the thing is that it has one or two professional staff throughout the year but for the
games, parents volunteer so you know every time you sign up for a league, you have to, for
every league you have at least 1 or 2 slots you have to do to house the stands.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
29
Daniel: And that's exactly what they do with South Tonka versus East Tonka. I mean they have,
I mean that's part of their revenue for South Tonka Little League. Where they, their concession
stand is a money maker for them so I mean that's why, for example at Bluff Creek, I'm surprised,
based on the fact that that facility is used basically from May through October, that there's not
some sort of concession stand. Especially with the amount of children and families that are
attending that. If you look at, if you really want to look at a revenue generating, again take the
building out, that would be certainly one opportunity for the city. Or programs. Again that
would be probably more of a program use than it would be something that the City'd be
coordinating but some of the athletic programs that Todd for example was representing here.
Hoffman: Bluff Creek is…a concession stand, nobody runs it.
Daniel: Yep.
Kelly: They're there for the chance that the Jamboree and it was jammed. It was jammed.
Hoffman: It was in the early days they operated…so it's kind of a level of commitment or a
tradition. If you go to Carver, everybody's been Carver to play ball games. The Lions are there
night in and night out cooking hamburgers, hotdogs, just one of their deals. It's their
commitment to the community and so… Is it going to generate dollars? Absolutely. Is it going
to generate anything close to the dollars we're talking about here now? No.
Daniel: But everything counts.
Hoffman: But there has to be somebody to do it.
Stolar: And I guess I view it more as a service to the people using the park, right. And if it pays
for itself, great. But we wouldn't put the concession stand in to make money. We'd put it in as a
service.
Hoffman: Absolutely. But the realities are…walk in and get $150,000 in lights by coming to a
meeting. It's a lot easier than running a concession stand for an entire season.
Stolar: Which I mean part of, one question I should have asked and I forgot about it was, you
know why don't they raise the money. We'll build it and they can run it and they can get money
and that's what Bennett does. That's what South Tonka does to raise money. So, any other
questions or items for the agenda?
Hoffman: Meeting to be held in the Fountain Conference room. You've probably all been there.
7:15.
Stolar: Yep. Can you send out a note?
Hoffman: There'll be an agenda. And this was just picked about a week ago… Two open spots
during the election. No candidates as of yet. Closing, filings close in September 12th.
Park and Recreation Commission - August 22, 2006
30
Murphy: Nobody applied for it?
Hoffman: Not yet. Nobody's filed for election yet.
Stolar: They'll probably wait until September 12th at the last minute. Can I have a motion to
adjourn?
Spizale moved, Atkins seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: TH 312/212 Project 03-09: Approve TH 212 Change Orders with
MnDot:
1. Turn Lane for proposed future Fire Station.
2. Changing signal lighting from cobra head to shoe box
fixtures.
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve change orders for TH 212 Improvements.
BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2006, the Council approved a change order to the TH 212
contract for adding decorative street lights to the Powers Boulevard Bridge.
On July 10, 2006, staff updated the Council on the TH 212 project at a work
session and discussed other changes to the TH 212 contract.
DISCUSSION
Staff has negotiated two more changes orders to the TH 212 with MnDOT. The
first change order is to install a right turn lane into the proposed future fire station
site located just south of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Susan
Drive. Since the July 10, 2006 Council meeting, the turn lane has been installed.
Staff just recently received the change order paper work. Staff has reviewed the
costs and finds them acceptable. Staff is still waiting for a change order from
MnDOT for the sewer extension to the site. These improvements have also been
installed. The turn lane change order amount is for $23,787.43. The total cost for
the fire station improvements will be well below the original estimate of $83,000.
The second change order request is for substituting Cobra head light fixtures
which are standard MnDOT fixtures at signalized intersections, with shoebox
fixtures which are the City’s standard fixtures for the intersection lighting at
signalized intersection. Also, the shoebox fixtures will better match the street
light fixtures along the corridors. All seven signals that will be constructed in
Chanhassen in conjunction with the TH 212 project are proposed to have the
shoebox light fixtures. All of the signals are proposed to be painted brown to
Todd Gerhardt
September 25, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
match the existing downtown street lights. The change order amount is for
$14,802.46.
The following is a summary of the changes made to the TH 212 contract to date if
the proposed change orders are approved:
Improvement Items Cost (+/-)
Deduct - Bluff Creek Bridge - $260,000
Add - Lights on Powers Blvd. (Council Approved (Feb. 13th) + $120,000
Add - Future Fire Station Turn Lane Improvements + $ 23,787
Add - Signal Shoebox Fixture Improvements + $ 14,802
Total - $101,411
The changes being proposed would be under the contract amount with MnDOT.
Funding for the TH 212 improvements is being financed with the State of
Minnesota Loan Agreement.
Staff recommends approval of the change orders at this time.
Attachments
c: Charles Cadenhead, MnDOT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJECT: Award Consultant Contract
City Project 06-06 Dogwood Road Improvements
BACKGROUND
In February, 2006 Kimley Horn and Associates prepared a draft feasibility
study to determine if the project is technically feasible and to provide
preliminary cost estimates. The cost estimates were distributed to the
neighbors at the second neighborhood meeting held in April, 2006. A
petition was circulated and 80% of property owners at that time were in
support the project moving forward.
At the August 14, 2006 City Council Work Session staff provided an update
on this project in conjunction with the 2007 Street Improvement
presentation.
DISCUSSION
This project is proposed to extend sewer and water from Tanadoona Drive
to end of Dogwood. Roadway and storm water improvements are also
planned
The February 2006 feasibility study will need to be updated to include a
street option with concrete curb and gutter and storm water ponding.
Staff feels Kimley Horn and Associates should be warded this project since
they drafted the feasibility study and are most familiar with the project.
Also, on August 28, 2006 the Council awarded Kimley Horn and
Associates the 2007 street rehabilitation project. Kimley Horn and
Associates has demonstrated their fees are competitive with other consulting
firms.
Kimley Horn and Associates has submitted an Individual Project Order
(IPO) for professional services associated with the Dogwood Road
improvements. The services include the preparation of plans and
specifications for watermain, sanitary sewer, forcemain, lift station re
placement and construction of a bituminous street. The work also includes soil investigation,
right of way acquisition documentation and construction administration. The estimated fees
and expenses to complete these services is $226,400.00. The contract is on a time and
materials basis and a not to exceed amount.
Funding for the project will mainly come from assessments to the benefiting property
owners. The City portion of the project cost is estimated to be only 17% of the project cost.
100% of the sewer and water improvements will be assessed to the benefiting property
owners. The City will only participated in 60% of the existing street improvement cost,
consistent with the City assessment practice.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council award the consultant contract for City Project 06-06
Dogwood Road Improvements to Kimley Horn and Associates for $226,400.00.
G:\ENG\PUBLIC\06-06 Dogwood Road Imp\09-25-06 award consultant.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: Longacres Drive Stormwater Pond Outlet Improvement & Lyman
Boulevard Sewer Repairs: Award of Contract
Project Nos. 06-08 and 06-09
REQUESTED ACTION
Award contract to GL Contracting, Inc.
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 2006, City Council authorized advertisement for bids on the above
referenced project.
On July 17, 2006, the City Council rejected the bids for this project and authorized
advertisement for bid.
This bid contains two project areas. The first is the construction of an emergency
outlet pipe to the Longacres pond located at the corner of Longacres Drive and
Moccasin Trail. The other is to fix a settled sewer main under Lyman Boulevard near
the Springfield neighborhood.
Longacres Pond Outlet Improvement
On September 4 and 5, 2005, Chanhassen experienced nearly a 100-year rainfall
event. The stormwater event caused drainage and erosion problems in many parts of
the city. Newly graded developments were particularly susceptible to erosion and
drainage problems. In the case of Highcrest Meadows, north of Longacres Drive, the
final grading was not complete, the site was not stabilized to withstand the extreme
rainfall and the stormwater infrastructure had not been installed. The volume of
runoff and accompanying debris and sediment caused damage to a number of existing
homes. It also alerted the City to an existing condition in the Longacres
neighborhood that intensified the effects of the rain event.
If the Highcrest Meadows development infrastructure would have been completed
and the storm sewer system functioning, impacts to the existing property owners most
likely would not have taken place. However, due to the amount of runoff and debris
that entered the City's storm sewer system from the development, the storm sewer
Todd Gerhardt
September 25, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
system became clogged and backed up. Normally, when storm sewer systems backup
or become clogged, an emergency overflow (EOF) system should take the runoff and
channel it over land away from structures to minimize the amount of property
damage. At this particular location, an EOF was designed to flow over Longacres
Drive but the road was built approximately 1.5' higher than planned and therefore
restricted the overflow from the pond. Also, the properties on the south side of
Longacres Drive where the EOF was designed to flow between two properties was
not graded to building plan and also restricted the overflow water from the pond.
The scope of the Longacres pond project includes directionally drilling an 18”
emergency outlet pipe from the Longacres pond to the north branch of Bluff Creek.
The 18” emergency outlet pipe is designed to handle runoff from a storm larger then a
100-year event and provide the pond with another outlet if the primary outlet
becomes clogged again. Directionally drilling the pipe is proposed to minimize the
disruption to the properties along the pipe alignment and decrease the impacts to the
adjacent properties. Additional catch basins along Longacres Drive are also
recommended. Replacement of the outlet structure will provide additional safeguards
from debris clogging the existing structure.
Lyman Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Improvement
On December 16, 2005, a sewer backup occurred in the Summerfield development.
The sewer backup was immediately cleared and the sewer pipe was cleaned by City
staff. In researching why the sewer backed up, it was determined that a segment of
sewer pipe under Lyman Boulevard has settled and caused the sewage to backup.
The area of settlement is adjacent to a wetland complex and it is speculated that poor
soils under the pipe have settled. The sanitary sewer pipe can no longer be
maintained or be relied on for proper sewer flow. It is recommended that the sewer
pipe be replaced and any poor soils under the sewer pipe be removed and replaced
with the necessary pipe bedding material.
DISCUSSION
The bids were received for the above-referenced project on Thursday,
September 14, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. The bids were tabulated and checked for errors.
There were a total of four bids received as follows:
# Contractor Base Bid Alternate No. 1 Alternate No. 2
1 GL Contracting, Inc. $211,785.70 $14,486.00 -$7,000.00
2 AB Environmental Corp. $221,782.60 $20,750.00 $0.00
3 Jay Brothers, Inc. $225,024.49 $12,970.00 -$2,000.00
4 Kusske Construction Co. $230,689.00 $15,300.00 -$2,000.00
Todd Gerhardt
September 25, 2006
Page 3
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
Two alternates were included in the bid. The first alternate was for construction of a
swale between two properties south of the Longacres Drive Stormwater pond. This
swale would be constructed at the low point of the road to create an overflow on the
properties. Since this swale would not help much in terms of overland emergency
flow since the Longacres Drive is still too high to make the swale effective, staff is
recommending rejecting this alternate. The second alternate was for extending the
completion date of the directional drilled pipe. The base bid completion date for this
work is November 15, 2006. Staff discussed this alternate with the contractor. The
contractor would like to start the directional boring work at the end of November
2006. Substantial completion of the work would occur at the end of the year. Staff is
recommending this alternate be accepted since it is a substantial cost savings and it
only extends the completion date until the end of the year. The likelihood of a
significant rainfall event late in the fall that could create flooding problems is very
low. Staff will continue to monitor the pond on a more frequent basis until the pipe is
installed. The contract award amount, if Alternate No. 2 is accepted, would be
$204,785.70.
The revised engineer's estimate was $190,000. The bid is $14,758.70 higher then the
engineers estimate. The difference is mainly in the cost of the directional bored pipe
for the Longacres Drive project and the cost of bituminous mix for the Lyman
Boulevard project. The cost of the directionally drilled pipe has been rising over the
last year and it is very difficult to predict the cost of the pipe. Also, a limited amount
of contractors are available to directional bore. The cost of bituminous pavement
keeps increasing. Bituminous material costs have risen substantially over the past
year. Staff does not believe rebidding the project will generate better bids.
The cost for the Longacres Drive construction project is $146,854.60 if Alternate No.
2 is accepted. These improvements were not budgeted for in the 2006 CIP since no
project was envisioned at that time. However, in this year’s 2006 Street Improvement
Project, $136,251.70 out of the $400,000 budgeted (SWMP-019) was used. Staff is
proposing to use this CIP item for constructing of the Longacres Pond improvements.
The Lyman Boulevard construction cost improvements are $57,931.10. The Lyman
Boulevard sanitary sewer improvements were not budgeted for in the 2006 CIP since
no project was envisioned at that time. However, in this year’s 2006 Street
Improvement Project, only $55,426.25 out of the $310,000 budgeted (SS-014) was
used. Staff is proposing this CIP item for the Lyman Boulevard sanitary sewer
improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending awarding this project to GL Contracting, Inc. in the amount of
$204,785.70.
c: Mark Statz, Bonestroo & Associates
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for
Boulder Cove- Project No. 06-15
(Simple Majority Vote Required)
The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval for the final plat
and construction plans and specifications. A $984,521.21 financial security is required to
guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract relating to the installation of
public streets and utilities, one-year of public street light operating costs, engineering,
surveying, inspection, landscaping and payment of special assessments.
The cash fees for this project total $263,386.90. A breakdown of the cash fee is shown on
page SP-3 of the development contract. No City funds are needed as part of this private
development project.
The applicant has also submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for staff review
and City Council approval. Staff requests that the City Council grant staff the flexibility to
administratively approve the plans after working with the applicant's engineer to modify the
plans accordingly.
Staff recommends that the construction plans and specifications for Boulder Cove dated
September 1, 2006, prepared by Otto Engineering and the development contract dated
September 25, 2006 be approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash
escrows or letter of credits for $984,521.21 and pay a cash fee of $263,386.90.
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to
meet City standards.
Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated September 25, 2006.
2. Construction plans and specifications are available for review in the
Engineering Department.
c: Otto Engineering
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\A-E\Boulder Cove\approve dc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
BOULDER COVE
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE
1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1
3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1
4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-2
5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2
6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2
7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3
8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3
9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................SP-7
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1
2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1
4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1
5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1
6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2
7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2
8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2
8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING
OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2
9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3
10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3
11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3
12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3
13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3
14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4
15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4
16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4
17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4
18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4
19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5
20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5
21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5
22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6
22. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6
B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7
C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7
D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7
ii
E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7
F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7
G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7
H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7
I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7
J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8
K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8
L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8
M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8
N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8
O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9
Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9
R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9
T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9
U. Soil Conditions............................................................................................GC-10
V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10
W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10
X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10
Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-11
SP-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
BOULDER COVE
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated September 25, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company (the "Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
Boulder Cove (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the attached
Exhibit "A".
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that
the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be
prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work
in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control.
The plans are:
Plan A: Final plat approved September 26, 2006, prepared by Otto and Associates.
Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated September 1, 2006, prepared by
Otto and Associates.
Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated September 1, 2006 prepared by Otto
and Associates.
Plan D: Landscape Plan dated September 1, 2006, prepared by Otto and Associates.
SP-2
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
A. Sanitary Sewer System
B. Water System
C. Storm Water Drainage System
D. Streets
E. Concrete Curb and Gutter
F. Street Lights
G. Site Grading/Restoration
H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV)
I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
J. Surveying and Staking
K. Landscaping
L. Erosion Control
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements except
for the wear course on public streets by November 15, 2006. The Developer may, however, request
an extension of time from the City Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon
updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion
date.
6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special
assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto,
from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $984,521.21. The amount of the
security was calculated as 110% of the following:
Site Grading/Erosion Control/Restoration $ 312,562.50
Sanitary Sewer $ 74,062.00
Watermain $ 125,095.00
Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $ 75,974.00
Streets $ 224,501.25
Street Lights and Signs $ 7,100.00
Sub-total, Construction Costs $ 819,294.75
Engineering, surveying, and inspection (7% of construction costs) $ 57,350.63
Landscaping (2% of construction costs) $ 16,385.90
Reimbursement for Barr Engineering Groundwater Analysis $ 1,988.00
Sub-total, Other Costs $ 75,724.53
Total Cost of Improvements $ 895,019.28
Letter of Credit Amount (110% of Improvements) $ 984,521.21
SP-3
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security
shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for
any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at
least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the
security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security
may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be
reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been
completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the
City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is
provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City.
7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at
the following address:
Roger Derrick
Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC
7300 Metro Boulevard #360
Edina, MN 55349
Phone: 952-830-0161 Ext. 326
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed
to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall,
7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100.
8. Other Special Conditions.
A. SECURITIES AND FEES
A $984,521.21 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed improvements, the
$263,386.90 cash administration fee and the fully-executed development contract must be
submitted and shall be submitted prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting. The cash fee was
calculated as follows:
Administration fee: ($500,000 at 3%) + ($319,294.75 at 2%) = $ 21,385.90
Street lighting charge: 3 lights x $300.00/light = $ 900.00
Attorney fee for review and recording final plat = $ 450.00
GIS fee: $25 (plat) + ($10/parcel x 40 parcels) = $ 425.00
Surface Water Management fee: $ 50,826.00
Park Dedication fee: $ 189,400.00
Total, Cash Fee = $ 263,386.90
B. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. Lot 22, Block 1 shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%.
SP-4
2. All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on Lot 22,
Block 1, shall be removed.
3. The developer shall work with the City to see if any additional significant trees can be
saved.
C. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. An encroachment agreement is required for the proposed retaining wall as it will lie
within the drainage and utility easement between Lots15 and 16, Block 2.
2. A building permit is required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher, regardless
of the location within the project or the party responsible for its construction
(developer or builder)
3. The developer will reimburse the City for the invoices received from Barr Engineering
for the Boulder Cove groundwater analysis. A $1,988.00 security must be posted to
ensure payment of these invoices.
4. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer
extension from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of
Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and West 62nd Street must be restored.
5. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller’s fence as a result of
the watermain installation.
6. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
7. 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.
8. The private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
9. A cross-access agreement must be recorded over the private street.
D. BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of
the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with
Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to
determine these requirements.
2. Buildings over 8500 square feet of gross floor area are required to be protected with
an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do
not constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included
SP-5
in the floor area threshold.
3. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as
determined by the Building Official.
4. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and
proposed mitigation reports. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems must
be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code.
5. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before permits can be issued.
6. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour
fire-resistive construction.
7. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
8. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
9. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all
times.
E. FIRE MARSHAL CONDITIONS
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code
Section 501.4.
4. 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.
SP-6
5. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must
either be removed from site or chipped.
6. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
F. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
1. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family-
dwelling, $5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-
plex.
G. WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS
1. At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are
estimated at $50,826.00
2. The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and
shall be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed
(perforated standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall
be provided within the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
3. Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water
basin within 24 hours of outlet installation.
4. 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
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.
5. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per
week or as conditions warrant.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit),
SP-7
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their
conditions of approval.
H. CITY FORESTER CONDITIONS
1. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in
rear yard areas and bufferyards.
2. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or
as close to that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be
installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction.
3. All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within
the dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond.
4. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in
order to protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line.
5. The applicant shall increase plant quantities in order to meet minimum
requirements for each bufferyard.
6. A minimum of one tree shall be planted in the front yard of each home. For 3-plex
buildings, a total of three trees are required.
7. The applicant shall increase the quantity of overstory shade trees and these shall be
located in the front yards.
8. Additional trees shall be planted to reduce the percentage attributed to Colorado
spruce or another species of tree be introduced and the quantities of Colorado
spruce be reduced in order that no more than one-third of the trees designated for
the development are from one species.
9. All disturbed areas within the development must be seeded or sodded . A turf and
irrigation plan shall be submitted to the city.
10. There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be
allowed to be planted in the bufferyard within the utility easement.
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit
"B" and incorporated herein.
SP-8
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC:
BY:
Roger Derrick
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by Roger Derrick of Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC, a Limited Liability Company,
on behalf of the company.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
That part of the North Half of Section 5, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, that lies:
1) Easterly of CHURCH ROAD SECOND ADDITION
2) Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way on Minnesota State Highway No. 7
AND
3) Westerly of Line A.
Line A is described as follows:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 5; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 17
minutes 13 seconds East, along the North line of said North Half of Section 5, a distance of 201.07 feet to the point of
beginning of said Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.51 feet; thence
165.71 feet Southerly on a non-tangential curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 60.00 feet, a central angle of
158 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West, and a chord
distance of 117.84 feet; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of
26.37 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Minnesota State Highway No. 7 and said Line A there
terminating.
AND
That part of the North Half of Section 5, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, that lies:
1) Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota State Highway No. 7
2) Easterly of Line A
AND
3) Westerly of Line B
Line A is described as follows:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 5; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 17
minutes 13 seconds East, along the North line of said North Half of Section 5, a distance of 201.07 feet to the point of
beginning of said Line A; thence South 05 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 154.51 feet; thence
165.71 feet Southerly on a non-tangential curve, concave Westerly, having a radius of 60.00 feet, a central angle of
158 degrees 14 minutes 39 seconds, a chord bearing of South 03 degrees 48 minutes 07 seconds West, and a chord
distance of 117.84 feet; thence South 30 degrees 22 minutes 28 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of
26.37 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Minnesota State Highway No. 7 and said Line A there
terminating.
Line B is described as follows:
Commencing at the North Quarter Corner of said Section 5; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 17
minutes 13 seconds East, along the North line of said North Half of Section 5, a distance of 286.14 feet to the point of
beginning of said Line B; thence South 11 degrees 17 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 50.90 feet; thence South
29 degrees 43 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 156.07 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of said Minnesota
State Highway No. 7 and said Line B there terminating.
MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and
effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
FEE OWNER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
fee owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound
by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. ___________________
Date: _________________
TO: City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on
sight on the undersigned bank.
The draft must:
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________,
2______, of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen.
c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November
30, 2______.
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-
five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank
delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel,
this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in
the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows:
Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen,
MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified,
amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not
referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw
may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and
Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly
honored upon presentation.
BY: ____________________________________
Its ______________________________
GC-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade
or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public
or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this
agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary
security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County
Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City
Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer
may proceed.
2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City
may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and
the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until
Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for
sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are
designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges
will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks.
3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the
preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into
lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval.
4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current
urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing
by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary,
to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date
of this Contract.
5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract
shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which
have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City
and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the
GC-2
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with
construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and
a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a
qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be
submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to
respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the
construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's
design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable
time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the
program for the construction work.
6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all
monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1.
The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have
been installed.
7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with plat development.
8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any
utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan,
Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional
erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the
excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in
that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified
seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized,
mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the
essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the
erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City,
the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the
Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations
hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in
full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control
needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been
completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is
no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion
and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the
erosion and sediment control measures.
8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a
building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash
GC-3
escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City
Code § 7-22.
9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily
clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that
has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by
the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public
easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work
with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the
project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate
contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City
Council resolution.
11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or
others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid,
and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted
with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by
this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the
Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any
further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees.
12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction
with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in
force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless
otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The
minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled
and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line).
In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the
Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas
of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a
financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These
conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued,
except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions
GC-4
must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will
be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct
inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each
inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements
are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the
escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy
any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do
not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project
approval.
14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit
either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit
for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements.
A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor
installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City
acceptance of the work.
B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years
from the date of final written acceptance.
C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season
following acceptance by the City.
15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage,
Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from
buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance.
16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread
against the plat in accordance with City standards.
17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and
water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable
compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook-
up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs
over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application. If paid with the building permit, the
party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees.
18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street
lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership
and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A
GC-5
plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs
the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat.
The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for
twenty (20) months.
19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the
City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating
the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location.
21. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of
the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as
review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction
progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of
improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be
calculated as follows:
i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000,
three percent (3%) of construction costs;
ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500,000 and
$1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for the first $500,000 and
two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000;
iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two
and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for the first $1,000,000 and
one and one-half percent (1½%) of construction costs over $1,000,000.
Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon
construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon
actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special
Provisions.
B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all
costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections.
This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the
construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
GC-6
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorneys' fees.
D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for
costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the
City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full.
Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges
and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges
("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees.
G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of
electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall
development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the
respective franchise agreements held with the City.
H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to
reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting
the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four
months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in
the Carver County Coordinate system.
22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given
notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the
City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the
land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost
in whole or in part.
23. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job
site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for
installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
(30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
GC-7
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service
in accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City
shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this
Contract or for allowing deviations from it.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall
be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a
stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received
satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer,
watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets
needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in
accordance with Plan B of the development plans.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall
be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the
title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at
the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance
of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an
individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing.
I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City
has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's
work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for
each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a
combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional
insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior
to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days
advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
GC-8
J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is
cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or
hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and
every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to
time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the
right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written
permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and
effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it.
L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this
contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency
conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work
performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted
construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties:
First violation $ 500.00
Second violation $ 1,000.00
Third & subsequent violations All site development and construction must
cease for seven (7) calendar days
M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and
similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the
improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction
hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway
improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building
permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance
until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to
detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and
closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage.
The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance
of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall
not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing
operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the
streets by the City.
GC-9
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales)
within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat.
The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end
two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by
the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special
provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period.
Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall
clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided,
the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior
to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as
unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a
building permit.
R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat
are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances.
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the
plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities:
1. City of Chanhassen;
2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
3. United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s);
5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions.
T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Development Contract.
U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such
property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the
presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the
property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of
soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no
fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building
GC-10
inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill
material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report
from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On
lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils
engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot.
W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors
must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material,
construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be
approved by the City Engineer
X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot
development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project.
The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall
be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on
streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer,
developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours.
Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the
City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced
construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of
the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer
shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two
complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4)
location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility
stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf
& .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility
tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed,
including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic
format.
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by
a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built
survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving
the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built
escrow withheld until all work is complete.
Rev. 3/31/06
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for
Pioneer Pass- Project No. 06-16
(Simple Majority Vote Required)
The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval for the final plat
and construction plans and specifications. A $1,817,949.21 financial security is required to
guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract relating to the installation of
public streets and utilities, one-year of public street light operating costs, engineering,
surveying, inspection, landscaping and payment of special assessments.
The cash fees for this project total $217,506.24. A breakdown of the cash fee is shown on
page SP-4 of the development contract. City funds will be used to reimburse the trunk
watermain oversizing.
The applicant has also submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for staff review
and City Council approval. Staff requests that the City Council grant staff the flexibility to
administratively approve the plans after working with the applicant's engineer to modify the
plans accordingly.
Staff recommends that the construction plans and specifications for Pioneer Pass dated
September 1, 2006, prepared by James R. Hill, Inc. and the development contract dated
September 25, 2006 be approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash
escrow or letter of credit for $1,817,949.21 and pay a cash fee of $217,506.24.
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to
meet City standards.
Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated September 25, 2006.
2. Construction plans and specifications are available for review in the
Engineering Department.
c: James R. Hill, Inc.
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\P-S\Pioneer Pass (fka Peterson Property)\approve dc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
PIONEER PASS
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE
1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1
3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1
4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-2
5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2
6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2
7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3
8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3
9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................SP-8
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1
2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1
4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1
5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1
6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2
7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2
8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2
8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING
OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2
9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3
10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3
11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3
12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3
13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3
14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4
15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4
16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4
17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4
18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4
19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5
20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5
21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5
22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6
22. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6
B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7
C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7
D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7
ii
E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7
F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7
G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7
H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7
I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7
J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8
K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8
L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8
M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8
N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8
O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9
Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9
R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9
T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9
U. Soil Conditions............................................................................................GC-10
V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10
W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10
X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10
Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-11
SP-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
PIONEER PASS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated September 25, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, Pioneer Pass, LLC, a Limited Liability Company
(the "Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
PIONEER PASS (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the
attached Exhibit "A".
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that
the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be
prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work
in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control.
The plans are:
Plan A: Final plat approved September 25, 2006, prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.
Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated September 1, 2006, prepared by
James R. Hill, Inc.
Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated September 1, 2006, prepared by
James R. Hill, Inc.
Plan D: Landscape Plan dated September 1, 2006, prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.
SP-2
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
A. Sanitary Sewer System
B. Water System
C. Storm Water Drainage System
D. Streets
E. Concrete Curb and Gutter
F. Street Lights
G. Site Grading/Restoration
H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV)
I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
J. Surveying and Staking
K. Landscaping
L. Erosion Control
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements except
for the wear course on public streets by November 15, 2006. The Developer may, however, request
an extension of time from the City Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon
updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion
date.
6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special
assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto,
from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $1,817,949.21. The amount of the
security was calculated as 110% of the following:
Site Grading/Erosion Control/Restoration $ 255,098.25
Sanitary Sewer $ 214,960.30
Watermain $ 177,492.25
Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $ 236,980.10
Streets $ 655,084.79
Sub-total, Construction Costs $ 1,509,615.69
Engineering, surveying, and inspection (7% of construction costs) $ 105,673.10
Landscaping (2% of construction costs) $ 30,192.31
Street lights (6 lights x $1,200/light) $ 7,200.00
Sub-total, Other Costs $ 143,065.41
Total Cost of Improvements $ 1,652,681.10
Letter of Credit Amount (110% of Improvements) $ 1,817,949.21
SP-3
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security
shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for
any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at
least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the
security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security
may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be
reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been
completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the
City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is
provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City.
7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at
the following address:
John Knoblach
Pioneer Pass, LLC
1450 Knob Hill Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
Phone: 612-490-4540 or 952-474-5662
And copied to:
Terry Schneider
Project Developers
600 South Highway 169, Suite 1580
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Phone: 612-720-7667
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed
to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall,
7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100.
8. Other Special Conditions.
A. SECURITIES AND FEES
A $1,817,949.21 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed improvements, the
$217,506.24 cash administration fee and the fully-executed development contract must be
submitted and shall be submitted prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting. The cash fee was
calculated as follows:
SP-4
Administration fee: ($1,000,000 at 2.5%) + ($509,615.69 at 1.5%) = $ 32,644.24
Arterial Collector Fee: $ 42,408.00
Street lighting charge: 6 lights x $300.00/light = $ 1,800.00
Attorney fee for review and recording final plat = $ 450.00
GIS fee: $25 (plat) + ($10/parcel x 60 parcels) = $ 625.00
Surface Water Management fee: $ 115,930.00
Pro-rated cost for the 2005 AUAR $ 23,649.00
Total, Cash Fee = $ 217,506.24
B. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
1. A 30 dBA attenuation shall be provided by the building design and construction along
with year-round climate control for the homes adjacent to the T.H. 312 right-of-way.
2. The developer shall pay $23,649.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
C. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
1. The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
2. The property was assessed $301,044.41 for the 2005 MUSA project. This assessment
will be reallocated to the lots within the final plat area, as follows:
$301,044.41 ¸ 81 units (preliminary plat) = $3,716.60/unit
Amount to be reassessed to lots within this final plat:
$3,716.60/unit x 53 units = $ 196,979.78
Amount to be assessed to Outlot C (future development):
$3,716.60/unit x 28 units = $104,064.79
3. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City for drainage, utility and public street purposes.
4. Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail
onto the property must be removed.
5. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
6. 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.
7. The grading along the rear lot lines in Block 2 must be adjusted so that there is
positive drainage from the back of the building pads along Creek Ridge Lane.
SP-5
8. The rear-yard drainage and utility easements in Block 2 must be adjusted accordingly
so that they encompass drainage swales that carry runoff from three or more lots.
9. Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
10. Extend the silt fence along the south property line.
11. 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 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit),
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of
Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
12. Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height.
13. Storm sewer calculations and drainage map have been submitted. Staff will verify that the
storm sewer is designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
14. The developer must install storm sewer and work with MnDOT to route the drainage
at the low point of Bluff Creek Drive at Pioneer Trail.
15. The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump.
16. Future utility service and access to the property to the east must to be determined prior to
final plat of Outlot C.
17. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots.
The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078
per unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit.
18. Homes with a lowest floor elevation of 935 feet or lower will likely require in-home
pressure reducing valves. This will be determined based on field pressure readings.
19. The sanitary sewer behind Lots 1 through 5, Block 1 can be shallowed to a minimum
depth of 7 feet.
20. The City will reimburse the developer the cost difference between an eight inch lateral
and 12 inch trunk.
21. The City will not reimburse engineering costs for the trunk watermain oversizing.
22. An eight inch lateral shall be stubbed to the east of Bluff Creek Drive at approximately
station 13+00 to provide future service to the remnant parcel and area turned back by
MnDOT (if any).
SP-6
23. 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 the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the
improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that
all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit
issuance
D. FIRE MARSHALL CONDITIONS:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the
new roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section
501.4.
4. 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.
5. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
6. Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-
sacs and at 300-foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time.
Submit revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
E. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
1. The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot D. This
property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site
being dedicated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased
by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in
total compensation for said 0.93 acres.
2. The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20-stall
parking lot for an additional not-to-exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking
lot shall include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the
borders of the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior
SP-7
to initiating construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are
reimbursable. Design, engineering, and testing services associated with these
improvements shall be provided by the applicant.
F. WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS:
1. The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The
estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $115,930.00.
2. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code
and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
3. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. 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. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
4. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet
of the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet
the 40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
5. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest
property line of Lots 1-5, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future
homeowners.
6. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24
hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation
area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion
control blanket upon the establishment of final grade.
7. Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of
the Bluff Creek Drive and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near
flared-end sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not
discharged against the silt fence, causing it to fail.
G. CITY FORESTER CONDITIONS:
1. The developer shall revise the landscape plan dated 9/1/06 on the park property as noted
on the red-lined plans: change five of the ABH to Hackberry, change note for 10 BHS to
10 SSC, and create an opening within the landscaping along cul-de-sac.
2. The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show
proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the
quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly.
SP-8
3. The applicant shall develop a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff Creek
Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff Creek
Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the city
before installation.
4. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property
corner where residential yards meet the primary zone.
5. The property owner may donate Outlots B and E to the City, or if retained under private
ownership, dedicate a conservation easement and a drainage and utility easement over
these Outlots.
6. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit
"B" and incorporated herein.
SP-9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Pioneer Pass, LLC:
BY:
John Knoblach, Chief Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by John Knoblach, Chief Manager of Pioneer Pass, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, on behalf
of the company.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
The East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver
County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part platted as MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10-20, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Carver County, Minnesota.
MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and
effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
FEE OWNER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
fee owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound
by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. ___________________
Date: _________________
TO: City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on
sight on the undersigned bank.
The draft must:
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________,
2______, of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen.
c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November
30, 2______.
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-
five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank
delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel,
this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in
the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows:
Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen,
MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified,
amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not
referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw
may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and
Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly
honored upon presentation.
BY: ____________________________________
Its ______________________________
GC-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade
or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public
or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this
agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary
security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County
Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City
Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer
may proceed.
2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City
may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and
the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until
Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for
sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are
designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges
will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks.
3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the
preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into
lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval.
4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current
urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing
by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary,
to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date
of this Contract.
5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract
shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which
have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City
and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the
GC-2
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with
construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and
a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a
qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be
submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to
respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the
construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's
design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable
time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the
program for the construction work.
6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all
monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1.
The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have
been installed.
7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with plat development.
8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any
utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan,
Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional
erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the
excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in
that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified
seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized,
mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the
essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the
erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City,
the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the
Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations
hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in
full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control
needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been
completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is
no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion
and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the
erosion and sediment control measures.
8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a
building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash
GC-3
escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City
Code § 7-22.
9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily
clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that
has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by
the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public
easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work
with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the
project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate
contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City
Council resolution.
11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or
others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid,
and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted
with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by
this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the
Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any
further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees.
12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction
with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in
force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless
otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The
minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled
and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line).
In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the
Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas
of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a
financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These
conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued,
except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions
GC-4
must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will
be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct
inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each
inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements
are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the
escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy
any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do
not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project
approval.
14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit
either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit
for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements.
A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor
installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City
acceptance of the work.
B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years
from the date of final written acceptance.
C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season
following acceptance by the City.
15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage,
Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from
buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance.
16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread
against the plat in accordance with City standards.
17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and
water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable
compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook-
up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs
over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application. If paid with the building permit, the
party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees.
18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street
lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership
and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A
GC-5
plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs
the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat.
The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for
twenty (20) months.
19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the
City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating
the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location.
21. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of
the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as
review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction
progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of
improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be
calculated as follows:
i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000,
three percent (3%) of construction costs;
ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500,000 and
$1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for the first $500,000 and
two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000;
iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two
and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for the first $1,000,000 and
one and one-half percent (1½%) of construction costs over $1,000,000.
Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon
construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon
actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special
Provisions.
B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all
costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections.
This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the
construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
GC-6
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorneys' fees.
D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for
costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the
City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full.
Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges
and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges
("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees.
G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of
electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall
development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the
respective franchise agreements held with the City.
H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to
reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting
the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four
months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in
the Carver County Coordinate system.
22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given
notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the
City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the
land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost
in whole or in part.
23. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job
site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for
installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
(30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
GC-7
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service
in accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City
shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this
Contract or for allowing deviations from it.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall
be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a
stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received
satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer,
watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets
needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in
accordance with Plan B of the development plans.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall
be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the
title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at
the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance
of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an
individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing.
I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City
has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's
work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for
each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a
combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional
insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior
to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days
advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
GC-8
J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is
cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or
hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and
every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to
time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the
right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written
permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and
effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it.
L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this
contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency
conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work
performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted
construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties:
First violation $ 500.00
Second violation $ 1,000.00
Third & subsequent violations All site development and construction must
cease for seven (7) calendar days
M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and
similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the
improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction
hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway
improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building
permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance
until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to
detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and
closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage.
The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance
of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall
not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing
operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the
streets by the City.
GC-9
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales)
within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat.
The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end
two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by
the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special
provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period.
Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall
clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided,
the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior
to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as
unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a
building permit.
R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat
are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances.
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the
plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities:
1. City of Chanhassen;
2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
3. United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s);
5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions.
T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Development Contract.
U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such
property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the
presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the
property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of
soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no
fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building
GC-10
inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill
material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report
from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On
lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils
engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot.
W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors
must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material,
construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be
approved by the City Engineer
X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot
development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project.
The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall
be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on
streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer,
developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours.
Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the
City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced
construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of
the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer
shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two
complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4)
location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility
stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf
& .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility
tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed,
including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic
format.
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by
a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built
survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving
the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built
escrow withheld until all work is complete.
Rev. 3/31/06
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement Addendum
City Project 07-01 Koehnen-Yosemite Road Improvements
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2005, Council authorized the preparation of the 2006 Street
Improvement Feasibility Report.
On January 9, 2006 Council accepted the feasibility report and called for the public
hearing for the project.
On January 23, 2006 Council held the Public Hearing for the Koehnen area
reconstruction project.
In April, 2006 it was determined that the reconstruction project could not be
completed until late fall, 2006 due to the MNDOT State Aid Review process for
the Yosemite Avenue portion of the project.
On April 10, 2006 Council approved deleting the Koehnen area reconstruction
from the 06-01 project.
DISCUSSUION
Staff would like to have these streets considered for reconstruction in 2007. The
project will need to start the MS429 assessment process over again. The tasks for
the project will need to include neighborhood meetings, updating the feasibility
study and public hearings and bidding services. The contract between the City and
the engineering consultant, Bolton & Menk, Inc. will need to be modified to
include these tasks for professional services. The addendum to the engineering
contract for these services is $12,910.00. The fee will be billed on an hourly basis
and a not to exceed amount.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the Bolton & Menk Professional
Services Agreement Addendum for an amount not to exceed $12,910.00.
Attached
c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the
General Election
On August 25, 2006, the city council appointed election judges to serve at the
Primary and General Elections this fall. Since there have been some
changes/additions made to the list since the Primary, staff is requesting that the
council approve the new list.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the list of election judges for
the General Election as attached.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution and Exhibit A.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: September 25, 2006 RESOLUTION NO: 2006-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ELECTION JUDGES FOR
THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006
WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen is required by law to adopt a resolution appointing the
election judges for the General Election on November 7, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen
that those listed on the attached Exhibit A shall serve as election judges for the General Election on
November 7, 2006.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this25th day of September, 2006.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
ELECTION JUDGES
GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006
Precinct 1, Main Fire Station
Name
Elections/Hours
(Only Noted if Not Working the Whole Day)
Reuben Kelzenberg, Head Judge Both
Kenny Larson, Assistant Head Judge Both
Barbara Martini Both
Jill Ahrens Both
Andrew Aller Both
Norma VanHaften Both
Linda Ginsbach Both
Joan Tam General Only (2 p.m. – Close)
Fred Prinz Both (1/2 day only—either shift)
Cathy Guthrie General Only
Mel Kurvers Both (1/2 day only 2 p.m. – close)
Bill Brechtel Both
Precinct 2, City Hall (Lower Level)
Name
Elections/Hours
(Only Noted if Not Working the Whole Day)
Joanne Meuwissen, Head Judge Both
Shirley Pzynski, Asst. Head Judge Both
Pat Donnay Both
Sally Johnson Both
Grace Tripp Both
Patricia Flakne Both
Dick Berg Both
Nancy Manarin Both (4 p.m. – close)
Rita Rojina Both (6 am-4 pm)
Kathleen Wendland Both
Rolland Neve Both
Joyce Heuer Both
Betty Jorgenson Both
Kathy Schroeder General Only
Marion Anderson General Only
Ann Fox General Only
Marianne McCord Both (3 p.m. – Close)
Precinct 3, St. Hubert Church
Name
Elections/Hours
(Only Noted if Not Working the Whole Day)
Paula Rice, Head Judge Both
Jean Steckling Both
Diane DePoe Both
Adell Glaser Both
Mary Jo Kamerud General Only
Odie Winkel Both
Frederick Potthoff, Sr. Both
Debra Wendorf Both
Mary Bracho Both
Ellis Thomas Both
Marcia Eland Both
Alan Fox General Only
Ken Wencl Both
Precinct 4, Living Christ Lutheran Church
Name
Elections/Hours
(Only Noted if Not Working the Whole Day)
Jan Thomas, Head Judge Both
Carol Hersman, Asst. Head Judge Both
Lynell Ahlstrom Both
James Waletski Both
Jan Lundquist Both
Darlene Kerber Both
Nancy Benecke Both
Carol Berg Both
Lloyd Anderson Both
Rosie Peitz Both
Elaine Neve Both (6 a.m. – 2 p.m.)
T.J. Zilka Both (2 p.m.-close)
Anne Crystal General Only
Joan Clapp Both
Precinct 5, Family of Christ Lutheran Church
Name
Elections/Hours
(Only Noted if Not Working the Whole Day)
Lou Krueger, Head Judge Both
Richard Rice, Assistant Head Judge Both
Lola Kagol Both
Patricia Kinkel Both
Barbara Solum Both
Conrad Winkel Both
Anne Cecko Both
Sharon Koenen Both
Jack Kreger Both
Gloria Cox
Shirley Livingston Both (1/2 day)
Judy Newhouse General Only
Judy Prinz General Only
Catherine Lam General Only
Precinct 6, Chanhassen Recreation Center
Name
Elections/Hours
(Only Noted if Not Working the Whole Day)
Sheila McSherry, Head Judge Both
Ann Kleve, Assistant Head Judge Both
Julie Terpstra Both
Chris Drahos Both
Ben Gowen Both
Kathleen Huntington Both
Dorothy Comer Both
Nancy Nelson Both
Bobbie Headla Both
Florence Raser Both
Eileen Simonette Both
Randee Diedrich Both
Joyce McFarland General Only
Dorothy Downing General Only (will work Primary if needed)
Don Holman General Only (will work Primary if needed)
Gail Kronmiller Both
Precinct 7, Chanhassen Recreation Center
Name
Elections/Hours
(Only Noted if Not Working the Whole Day)
Betty Eidam, Head Judge Both
Kim Meuwissen, Asst. Head Judge Both
Merlyn Kinkel Both
Sue Kelly Both
Mary Kraft Both
Linda Mady Both
Richard Keller Both
Carol Dunsmore Both
Carol Buesgens Both (12 pm-Close)
Fran Scheffel Both
Paul Brady General Only (6 a.m.-2 p.m.)
Pat McGough Both
Carol Hed General Only
Rick Engelhardt General Only
Holly Rakocy General Only
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: Audit & Accounting Services Contract
BACKGROUND
Our current auditing and accounting services contract with HLB Tautges Redpath
expired after the completion of the 2005 audit. In May, staff contacted all the
local accounting firms that have significant experience with government clients to
request bids for accounting and auditing services for audit years 2006-2008.
The RFPS were mailed out in June and due back July 31, 2006. We received bids
from six firms and a summary of those bids are included in an attached
spreadsheet. After reviewing the proposals, three firms were selected to interview.
Those interviews were conducted the second week of August.
The three finalists included KDV, LAWCO, and HLB Tautges. The audit
selection committee met after the interviews and discussed the three finalists.
RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the written proposals and conducting the interviews, the audit
selection committee felt that the difference in cost of less than $1,000 with
HLB Tautges’s proposal to the next closest bidder, was not enough to offset other
potential costs of having a new audit firm conduct the audit. If a new firm is
selected, the additional time staff would need to provide new documentation and
support of internal controls and operating procedures would amount to well more
than $1,000.
In addition, staff and management has been very pleased with the quality of work
HLB Tautges Redpath has given the city over the past several years, including
being a key part in assisting the city in receiving a large portion of the state’s TIF
grant pool four years ago, and assistance with transition of finance directors in
2004-2005.
Audit & Accounting Services Contract
September 25, 2006
Page 2 of 2
Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation that the City sign a three year audit and
accounting services contract with HLB Tautges Redpath, for audit years 2006-
2008.
ATTACHMENT
1. RFP Summary Spreadsheet.
City of Chanhassen
2006-2008 Audit Proposals
2006
KDV LAWCO MMKR Abdo Eide Bailly HLB TautgesNumber of Estimated Total Audit Hours 500 440 475 467 480Hourly Rates Partner 150.00 155.00 180.00 180.00 217.00 198.00 Manager 125.00 135.00 110.00 130.00 150.00 138.50 Senior 100.00 95.00 90.00 0.00 100.00 87.00 Staff 80.00 70.00 80.00 89.00 86.00 73.00Total Audit Cost 39,950.00 43,800.00 48,250.00 42,519.00 50,828.00 42,500.00Total Accounting Service Cost 38,000.00 36,200.00 35,600.00 39,700.00 46,120.00 36,120.00
Total Audit & Accountiung Services 77,950.00 80,000.00 83,850.00 82,219.00 96,948.00 78,620.00
2007
KDV LAWCO MMKR Abdo Eide Bailly HLB TautgesNumber of Estimated Total Audit Hours 450 440 475 454 490Hourly Rates Partner 155.00 160.00 180.00 187.00 241.00 205.50 Manager 130.00 140.00 110.00 135.00 155.00 144.00 Senior 105.00 100.00 95.00 0.00 104.00 90.00 Staff 85.00 75.00 80.00 93.00 89.00 76.00Total Audit Cost 42,750.00 45,920.00 48,825.00 44,220.00 52,208.00 43,800.00Total Accounting Service Cost 38,000.00 38,200.00 36,200.00 41,400.00 47,795.00 37,520.00
Total Audit & Accountiung Services 80,750.00 84,120.00 85,025.00 85,620.00 100,003.00 81,320.00
2008
KDV LAWCO MMKR Abdo Eide Bailly HLB TautgesNumber of Estimated Total Audit Hours 450 460 475 454 490Hourly Rates Partner 160.00 165.00 180.00 195.00 249.00 214.00 Manager 135.00 145.00 115.00 141.00 161.00 149.50 Senior 110.00 105.00 95.00 0.00 107.00 94.00 Staff 90.00 75.00 80.00 96.00 92.00 79.00Total Audit Cost 45,750.00 49,940.00 49,275.00 45,989.00 53,613.00 45,200.00Total Accounting Service Cost 38,000.00 39,200.00 36,600.00 42,900.00 49,270.00 39,040.00
Total Audit & Accountiung Services 83,750.00 89,140.00 85,875.00 88,889.00 102,883.00 84,240.00
Accounting Service Hours were based on a finance department estimate of 80 hours at manager level, 120 hours at senior level, and 200 at staff level
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Gordy Stauff, Engineering Technician IV/Construction Manager
DATE: September 12, 2006
SUBJ: Accept Streets, Storm Sewer and Utility Improvements in Fox Den
Project No. 05-10
Staff has received a letter from Cara Otto, Project Engineer with Otto Associates,
requesting the City consider acceptance of the street, storm sewer and utility
improvements in the above-referenced project. According to Ms. Otto, the public
street, storm sewer and utility improvements have been completed in conformance with
the approved plans and specifications. City staff performed a walk-through inspection
of the project and found the improvements to be in satisfactory condition.
It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept the public street, storm sewer
and utility improvements in Fox Den, Project No. 05-10, for perpetual maintenance
and ownership conditioned upon the receipt of the required three-year street
maintenance bond and the required two-year utility maintenance bond.
jms
Attachments: 1. Letter from Cara Otto.
2. Location Map.
c: Cara Otto, Otto Associates
Scott Rosenlund
Tim Volk
g:\eng\projects\f-j\fox den\accept streets-utilities.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
DATE: September 25, 2006
SUBJ: District 112 High School Referendum Update
Representatives from School District 112 will be in attendance to give the City
Council an overview of the upcoming referendum. This referendum will include
the construction of a new high school in Chanhassen. No action is required by
the City Council on this item.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Gregg Geske- Fire Chief
Sherri Walsh – 1st Assistant Chief
Randy Wahl - 2nd Assistant Chief
Mark Littfin- Fire Marshal
Ed Coppersmith – Training Officer
DATE: September 15, 2006
SUBJ: Monthly City Council update
Fire Department Overview:
Staffing is at 45 active firefighters as of September 15, 2006; allocation is 45 PTEs
Fire Training:
During the month of August the Fire Department trained in Search and Rescue skills using self-
contained breathing apparatus and also conducted Company level skills training ( i.e. hose lays, ground
ladder skills and pumping). The rookie firefighters began attending Firefighter 1 and 2 and Haz Mat
Operationals classes at Hennepin Technical College.
Fire Marshal:
No fires to report. (The Fire Prevention Week Activities must be working.)
Fire Inspections:
Projects at various stages of construction and inspection are; Emerson, Pizza Hut, Abra Auto Body,
Gateway Apartments, Water treatment plant, Town and Country townhomes, Miner/Par-Tech building,
and Lifetime Fitness office building. All of the schools in the city will be inspected by the end of
October. After that is finished we will be inspecting hotels/motels, and will continue with
office/warehouse occupancies.
Todd Gerhardt
September 15, 2006
Page 2
Fire Prevention:
Plans are currently underway for Fire Prevention Week activities involving our four elementary schools,
grades K through 5, along with a number of visits to our daycare centers. Most of the month of October
is dedicated to fire prevention activities. Currently we have over 20 firefighters who have volunteered
their time to work with the kids. Most have taken vacation time and comp time to assist with these
activities. The Fire Department Open House is scheduled for Sunday, October 15th from 1:00 to 4:00
pm at the main fire station. Hope to see you there.