CAS-12_WATER TREATMENT PLANT - CITY OF CHANHASSEN (3)(,,=�-IZ
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
CITY OF CHANHASSEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-12
NOTICE IS HEREBYGIVEN that
the Chanhassen Planning (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
Commission will hold a public newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at amended.
7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.�
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
to consider a request for a Land Use Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
Amendment from Parks and Open the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
Space to Commercial; Subdivision approval for two lots and Site Plan inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
publication of the Notice:
Review with variances fora 12,500 and P
square -foot building for a Water
Treatment Plant and an 8,100 square- abcdefghpklmnopgrstu
foot Back Wash Tank. a location City B
of Chanhassen.
A plan showing the location of the
proposal is available for public review B
at City Hall during regular business Laurie A. Hartmann
hours. All interested persons are
invited to attend this public hearing
and express their opinions with respect
to this proposal. Subscribed and swom before me on
Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
Email:
be n roA. i chanh s n n ,s this day of �"'�^�' 2005
Phone: 852-227- GWEN M. PADUENZ
(Published in the Chanhassen N0TAA1'FU8l1C-LONY,.SOTA
Villager on Thursday, March24,2005; yy EVwJan21,MO
No. 4387)
Notary Public 0
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter .......................... -... . $22.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.18 per column inch
SCANNED
• • OS -12.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO.05-12
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a Land Use
Amendment from Parks and Open Space to Commercial; Subdivision approval for two lots and
Site Plan Review for a 12,500 square -foot building for a Water Treatment Plant and an 8,100
square -foot Back Wash Tank. Applicant: City of Chanhassen.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Email: beenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1131
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on March 24, 2005)
SCANNED
r
City Council Meeting — May 23, 2005
F
OS-I2
perspective hires on the fire department and I think we have, currently have 9 people that are
interested in joining the fire department so we'll take them through the interview process and
such. Bring to everybody's attention of course in the next month here it should warm up and
we'll have people out on the lakes and at the beaches and what not and we do have rescue boats
and dive teams and everything else but we'd like to keep those from being called out so we'd
like safety to be on everybody's mind and when they are out in the boats and definitely out at the
swim places where we don't have lifeguards and such so, that's about all I have. Do you have
any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Chief? No, sounding good. Very good, thank you.
Chief Gregg Geske: Okay, thanks. Have a nice night.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
GATEWAY 2ND ADDITION, EAST WATER TREATMENT PLANT:
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATION OF EASEMENTS, PROJECT
05-02.
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
C. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. The first item for your consideration
tonight regarding the Gateway 2°d Addition, east water treatment plant is the vacation of existing
easements over the underlying plat. The underlying plat over the east water treatment plant was
originally platted under the Gateway East plat in 2001. As with all plats, standard drainage and
utility easements along the lot lines were granted to the city. With the construction of the new
proposed water treatment plant, new drainage and utility easements have been dedicated to the
city. In order to remove the old easements encumbered on the new lots the city will need to
vacate the old easements. The easements are shown on these sheet here. This is the end of 79d'
Street. Trunk Highway 5 is on the bottom of the drawing here, and this is an outlot under the
Gateway East original plat, so pretty straight forward. I'd recommend that a public hearing be
opened at this time and I stand for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the staff? If not we will open the public hearing
and invite any interested parties to come forward and speak on this matter. Please come forward
to the podium, state your name and address. Nobody? Okay. If not then without objection we'll
close the public hearing and bring it back to council. So moved, or order so any discussion on
the council on this item? Seems pretty straight forward. The items B and C, is there anything to
discuss on those right now before we move forward with any action?
Paul Oehme: I can run through the second item. The final plat approval if you'd like.
Mayor Furlong: The plat approval or the plans and specs?
12
City Council Meeting — May 23, 2005
Paul Oehme: The plat approval or the plans and specs. We can look at and see if you'd like to,
it doesn't make any difference.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Let's go with any questions, if there are any questions on those items.
No? Okay.
Paul Oehme: Well for the plat approval.
Mayor Furlong: We're just going from preliminary to final there. There weren't any material
changes?
Paul Oehme: Yep. There basically from the preliminary to the final plat there were some
conditions that were originally in the packet, 25 additional conditions. Most of those conditions
have been met at this time. Additional conditions will be met prior to contract or/and during the
construction process. Again on April 25`" City Council did look at land use in this area.
Preliminary plat approval again and then the site plan review for the 12,500 square foot building
that we're considering building. For the water treatment plant. Utility easements again were
reviewed, consistence with the standard specifications and street layouts and then landscaping as
well too, so the 25 conditions that were originally in the preliminary plat approval again have
been met and are included in these documents here. The plans and specifications for the
treatment plant site, so they're really close to being finalized at this time. There's a couple
things that the city attorney has recommended we include at this time but they're easily
incorporated in the plans.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any other questions on these, and just for a point of
clarification, I think originally, or not originally. At one point when we were putting the agenda
together this evening, items 3 B and C were included in the consent agenda as the normal course.
We'd bring a final back that way. The only reason they were put down here was because we did
have the public hearing on item 3A, so while it's not public hearing, certainly if anybody would
like to speak to these, we'd welcome you to come forward now to speak on either of these two
matters as well. Items 3 B or C. If you're interested please come forward to the podium. Just to
make sure that there's no confusion there. That's fine. With that, is there any other discussion
on any of the items 3A, B or C from the council level? If not, is there. I'm sorry, Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: I have one item. Paul, wasn't there one item you wanted to change on storm
water ponding?
Paul Oehme: Yep, and I don't know as a matter of course, should we be voting on the, council
vote on the just the preliminary, or the vacation of easements first?
Roger Knutson: There's no reason they can vote on all three of them at the same time.
Paul Oehme: Okay. Then we'll just move onto item number C then. Or actually B, I'm sorry.
Under the recommendations, under page 7. Item number 6.
Mayor Furlong: Which item are you?
r
City Council Meeting — Ma•23, 2005
Paul Oehme: Under B, I'm sorry. Under B, page number 6. Page number 7. Under the
recommendations. Second to the last sheet. Staff I guess is requesting that the language of that
item be, just be changed to be a little more flexible in that the applicant being the city should just
work with the watershed district. Seeing if the regional water quality infrastructure on the site
can be provided at this time. We don't know if it can be or not. We just wanted the flexibility
that city staff should be looking at that instead of just having us required to construct a regional
pond at this site.
Todd Gerhardt: We want to do this when there's no planners here.
Councilman Lundquist: Perfect.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so what's the wording change? Shall or should?
Todd Gerhardt: How about the applicant provide.
Councilman Lundquist: How about the applicant shall work with the watershed district to
investigate a regional water quality infrastructure on this site.
Paul Oehme: I agree.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, anything else then on any of these items? A, B or C.
Paul Oehme: I can talk some more if you want to see the plans or the schematics.
Councilman Lundquist: Was that a threat or a promise?
Mayor Furlong: I'm not trying to rush you.
Paul Oehme: We can move on. I should just briefly touch on a third item and that is, having
council consider us to go with plans and specs and authorize the advertising for bids at this time
too. Basically in your outline we identified what the scope of the project is. Basically again it's
a water treatment plant facility to remove the iron, manganese that are currently in our water.
They're creating more of the rusty water issues that we have here. Another benefit to the
treatment plant, naturally occurring contaminants are in our water as well too, so it's a good
thing that we're planning for the future with this project as well. Setting up a infrastructure for
future wells 10 and 11, and kind of looking forward and into the future. The schedule for the
project, I'll briefly go over that. We're looking at opening bids on June 30`s and then having
council consider awarding a contractor of the lowest qualified bidder in July. Starting the project
up and construction in July, and then having the project potentially completed in August or at an
alternate start up date of December 3'a, which is an alternate bid item in our contract as well. So
with that being said, again I stand for questions and I recommend that all 3 items be approved.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff on any of those items? I think this is
continuing along the path that we've been working for over the last, boy almost 2 V2 years. And
even longer than that with the CAP agency, the CAP group, citizens group that has been looking
at this so this is just the next step here, and we're getting to the point now where we're going out
10
City Council Meeting — May 23, 2005
and saying we want to build this and let's find out what the price is and see how good our
engineering estimates are. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Just to add one more thing in there Paul, we should put in a ground breaking
ceremony between award of bid and start of construction. I think the Mayor made a great point
here that this has been going on for 2 1h years. I think the CAP agency's been involved in this
for over 3 years and I think when you have an achievement like this you've got to celebrate it
and I think the city should have their ground breaking. This is probably going to be one of the
most expensive capital improvement projects that the city's taken on and I think we should
celebrate that, and work with SEH in planning a great ground breaking ceremony.
Mayor Furlong: We're celebrating the expense part of it?
Todd Gerhardt: I said work with SEH on sharing the cost of that.
Councilman Lundquist: We're celebrating the wise investment.
Todd Gerhardt: That too.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Anything else? If not is there a motion, either
individually if people desire or we can take them combined.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I'd move that we approve items 3(a) as published. 3(b) with
the edit to item number 6 on page 7 to read the applicant shall work with the watershed district to
investigate a regional water quality infrastructure on this site. And item 3(c) as published.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Resolution#2005-49: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the existing public drainage and utility
easements as defined on the attached vacation description. 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
approves the final plat for Gateway East 2°d Addition creating two lots and one outlot
(plans prepared by Hansen Thorp Pellinen & Olson, Inc.), subject to the following
conditions:
1. An access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 shall be recorded across Lot 1.
2. On the site plan show the dimensions for street width, cul-de-sac radius, parking stalls,
trail, etc..
11
• •
City Council Meeting — May 23, 2005
3. The proposed retaining wall along the north side of the backwash tanks will require a
building permit from the City's Building Department.
4. Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type I silt fence be
used along the entire south and west construction limits. A rock construction entrance,
per City Detail Plate No. 5301 must be added to the plans off of existing West 79t° Street.
In addition tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All
disturbed areas as a result of construction must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Any off site grading will require an
easement from the appropriate property owner.
5. Additional signage shall be installed alerting motorists to the blind approach near the
existing Hanus Building just west of the site.
6. The applicant shall work with the watershed district to investigate a regional water
quality infrastructure on this site.
7. The flow path and velocity of the water from the flared end sections to the storm water
shall be evaluated.
8. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) encompassing an erosion and
sediment control plan shall be developed for the site.
9. Erosion control blanket shall be applied to the storm water pond and any disturbed areas
between the flared end sections and the pond, as well as on any slopes greater than or
equal to 3:1.
10. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared end sections.
11. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
T of Slove
Time
Steeper than 3:1
7 days
(Maximum time an area can
10:1 to 3:1
14 days
remain open when the area
Flatter than 10:1
21 days
is not actively being worked.)
12. 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.
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
12
• •
City Council Meeting —May 23, 2005
14. Inlet protection shall be provided following installation. Wimco-type inlet controls are
recommended.
15. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota
Department of Health, and Minnesota Department of Transportation), and comply with
their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Resolution#2005-50: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approves the construction plans and specifications and authorize
advertisement for bids, Project No. 04-08. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2005 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 05-01:
A. ASSESSMENT HEARING.
B. AWARD OF BID.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Meier 1420 Lake Lucy Road
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Staff requests that the City Council
hold an assessment hearing and consider a resolution adopting the 2005 street improvement
assessment roll. September 27`" the City Council authorized the preparation of the feasibility
study for this project and since then city staff has held two neighborhood meetings, open houses
for this project and has opened bids as well. The final assessment amounts based on the bid
results that we have just received. Prior to completion of the public hearing, any property
owners wishing to object to their assessment must file a signed written objection or they waive
their rights to appeal. Objections after this public hearing are invalid. The City Council should
approve a resolution as in the background, as adopted, or either modify it as submitted. Staff has
not received any objections to the assessment hearing at this time, or the assessments at this time.
In all 128 notices for this public hearing had been sent out. I'd like to just briefly go through
each of the project areas at this time. The project areas again we were looking at, there were 3
major, main areas and the streets that have been identified were identified through the pavement
management program we have here at the city. The Lake Lucy area is shown in this drawing in
the blue. The project includes Lake Lucy Road which is the east/west collector roadway. Steller
Court and Charing Bend. And Lake Lucy Road is from Galpin Boulevard over to Powers on the
east. Those improvements include an area in Lake Lucy Road from a 36 foot wide roadway
down to 32. Milling and overlaying the street. Installing concrete curb and gutter along the edge
of the road on Steller Court and Lake Lucy Road. And then adding an off street trail on the north
13
City Council Meeting — Apn'I Z5, 2005
6
2. The applicant shall submit a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland
construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native
vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the
preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on -
site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland
buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas
shall be preserved, surveyed and signed 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 will pay the City $20 per sign.
4. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, and storm water infrastructure. Easements shall be at least 20 feet in width
to allow access for inspection and maintenance.
5. 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:
Tof Slope
Type ie
Time
(msximmn °me an area can remain "°vegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1
7 Days
10:1 to 3:1
14 Days
Flatter than 10:1
21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United
States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The City is the applicant on this development proposal. There's
three requests before you tonight. A land use amendment from parks and open space to
commercial, a subdivision of 2 lots and 1 outlot, and site plan review for 12,500 square foot
34
SCANNED
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
water treatment plant. Subject site is located right adjacent to the pedestrian bridge. Right here
across from Lake Drive East. And extension of West 78`s Street. The subdivision creates 3 lots,
Outlot A. If you can see that very well. Outlot A, which would be a lot that can be transferred
which contains a parking area. Lot 1, which will be the site for the water treatment plant and Lot
2, which can be a lot. It can be developed in the future. The land use, by changing it, it is zoned
business highway and it is guided parks and open space. Again, when we looked at this site a
number of years ago when the City took down the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix plant and looked at
a number of different iterations for some entrance monuments. This was talked about when we,
actually when we did the bridge too, possibly putting a landscape feature of some sort in there.
There was a lot of different designs and discussion on that but nothing was ever adopted as a
formal policy, so actually we have the zoning and the land use inconsistent, which in technical
terms is not the best thing to do. It's supposed to be by law consistent so by re -guiding it back to
the commercial, that would be consistent with the underlying land use. Any questions on the
subdivision? There is access via the, both parcels will be via a private drive and not a public
street. So there'd be cross access easements on that. So this is Lot 1, the specific site plan for
the water treatment plant. This is the pedestrian bridge, touch down at this point right now.
There will be two trails. One that will go around. That'd be easier access as opposed to a
steeper one that would be cut between the water tanks and the treatment facility itself. So access
again would be behind the extension of the public street, coming back behind via a private drive.
Any questions on the site plan? The one thing I did want to mention, we are working with the
applicant. One of the things that we're discussing with the city forester, we're trying to put a
little bit more native vegetation on there so we're still working with them on that but I think we
want to do something that's a little more low maintenance. It's steep slopes. Those trees that are
there right now, we're going to try to relocate on some other city property but we'd like to see if
we can do something that's a little less maintenance on that.
Councilman Lundquist: So how's Paul treating you on that?
Kate Aanenson: Very good.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, did you jump across the desk when you're speaking with the applicant?
Kate Aanenson: It's going really well. Actually staff is really pleased with the architecture itself
on the building. There's material samples in front, I don't know if you want to try to put the
camera on, if you shoot more on those. But it does meet the standards even though it's an
institutional type building, function building. Architecturally it's a very, very nice building. As
a matter of fact the Planning Commission felt it almost looked like a school, so we're very
pleased with the architect and I just want to give credit to SEH who really spent a lot of time
looking at some of the buildings in town and kind of came up with actually 3 different iterations.
Kind of one mimicking the pedestrian bridge itself, which I'll go through in a minute. The
library. And I can't remember what the third was, but we narrowed it down to this bridge and
how that mirrors kind of what's happening in the area. So it does have a light brown brick,
limestone color block, beige concrete and window sills, so there's fake windows on the perimeter
too, so it does meet all the architectural standards. It is only 24 feet high, so it's one story. It
does have a sloped roof which is one of the design standards for the city, and again 50% of the
first floor elevation that is viewed by the public is transparent, and those are those fake windows
35
ai.+{v P.
City Council Meeting — April-25, 2005 •
that are in front. So this would be the view you would see from, can you zoom in on that just a
little bit Nann, thank you. This would be the view you would see from Highway 5. And again
these are the fake windows that will be up on top, and you can see the mimicking of the ped
bridge with the look on the top which we think is again very complimentary.
Mayor Furlong: Kate, quick question if I can interrupt.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: I don't know if it's the camera or just the, are those multiple colors across those
faces? The green and the red.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. This is the limestone.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, that's limestone underneath those.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and then this is brick. It's not picking that up as clearly, so you've got
the limestone here, the brick and this is the windows that are used, the fake windows. And, or
glass block, and then there's concrete too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And right where you pen just was, that looks green and red to me but
it's.
Kate Aanenson: It's a continuous... right, so this would be also the elevation facing east. Now
while it has high exposure right now, ultimately depending on the use that goes in front, that
would also screen that portion. If you follow what I'm saying. There will be another view in
front of that, so some of that will disappear. But then, this would be the same thing facing the,
the access street. Private drive, and then facing west, which would be towards the existing
Hanus building. Or now Gary Brown has that property. So with that, again we're
recommending approval of the subdivision and the site plan, as well as the land use being
consistent with the comprehensive plan. And again, the one thing that we're still asking that they
make modifications to is the landscaping plan and we're working well with them on that, so staff
is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff on this.
Councilman Labatt: None.
Mayor Furlong: No? I guess just a comment. When I look at the city being an applicant and the
city staff working with the city itself.
Todd Gerhardt: The applicant has no questions.
Mayor Furlong: And the applicant has no questions, and we still come up with 25 conditions
upon ourselves.
36
• •
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
Kate Aanenson: We're hard.
Mayor Furlong: Who says we're not following this the way we would any other developer.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think we held ourselves to a pretty good standard.
Mayor Furlong: Apparently. Are we trustworthy? I think we are. I think we are so.
Todd Gerhardt: We did waive the letter of credit though.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions on this discussion? This is the start. This is a continuing
process and I think it was helpful to bring it to council here tonight in terms of the site plan and
discussion as well and let people know what's moving on this site. It's been in the works for a
while. It's going to improve our water quality. Existing water quality will be improved and help
maintain our water quality and standards of drinking water as we go forward so, this is the first.
This plant will serve a portion of our city and it will treat the water coming from the wells that's
the worst in the city right now. It will bring that up to a higher level in the rest of the city and
move forward so.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was just going to point out there was a question at the Planning
Commission regarding view so it is screened by the railroad tracks, the cemetery on the other
side, and then ultimately I just wanted to point out too that when we looked at the cemetery
project for St. Hubert's, we also looked at ultimately someday having a pedestrian crossing over
that, which they've given us rights to do, so that it can be incorporated sometime in the future to
provide. We've got the pedestrian bridge coming over 5 to ultimately get over the tracks and be
able to access that area which we think will be a real benefit to our residents, so we're still
continuing to work on that too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Thank you. Any other discussion?
Paul Oehme: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Paul Oehme: Pardon me. At this time under the agenda we had a 90% review of the east water
treatment plant to be considered at the work session. Just for the sake of consistency in what we
were talking about, the site plan at this time, we'd offer to update the council in 90% review of
the plans and the specifications ... the construction schedule as well. So if you're open to that.
Mayor Furlong: I think so, unless.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just ask for one thing. Just so when we wind up I've got 3 motions that I
need.
Mayor Furlong: Sounds like a great idea.
37
City Council Meeting — Apri• , 2005 •
Paul Oehme: The consultant engineer is here tonight and last time we met was, I think it was
back in February for a 60% review and now it's 90% review. We're getting really close to
letting the project and before we did, I want to go to the next step in approving the plans and the
specs we'd like to just let the council know and the residents here in Chanhassen know exactly
where we're at in terms of schedule and the cost of the plan and other miscellaneous issues
associated with the plan too, so at this time I'd like Jim North from SEH to give a brief
presentation.
Jim Norton: Okay, thanks Mayor and council. Jim Norton, SEH. With me tonight is Mr. Jay
Whittaker, the project coordinator. He's going to talk about the construction cost estimate in
more detail. Kind of a peak here and just briefly it talks about the schedule. Tonight's
discussion is the 90% review and a review of the final construction cost estimates. And what's
shown on here then as far as the 100% review, approval of plans and specifications, and then
also at that council meeting in a month is the authorization for advertisement for bids. May 23d
and then the opening of the bids would be sometime in late June, and between there there would
be a pre -bid meeting. Mandatory pre -bid meeting for contractors. Start of construction would be
in July. Start up of the treatment plant could potentially be in August of 2006 with an alternate
start up date December, 2006. So that's kind of a general schedule that we've talked about and
have adhered to from the beginning so. With that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Jay Whittaker to
talk in more detail about the final construction cost estimates.
Jay Whittaker: Council, mayor, staff. Just to go over our construction cost estimate. This is
basically the same format we used at the 30%. The one thing that got a little different, the
asterisks for base bid, if the alternates are accepted. That means that in those numbers we've
added in contingencies and inflation in some of the construction costs will be incurred in 2006.
So those two numbers represent what you can compare the actual bids that you'll receive. And
the first number is base bid and that's the high number. Based on our water plan that we're
doing, Knutson is doing with us at Eagan, they also had a short schedule and a long schedule.
The longer one is the one that will actually be cheaper. So when I say both alternates, it's a
deduct for the longer schedule, and an add for the other alternate which was a larger block on the
retaining walls to match your abutments on the pedestrian bridge. So those are those two
numbers. We've also been instructed by staff to implement a sales tax rebate and depending on
what exactly qualifies as process equipment with the state, that deduce should be something
around $300,000. And that's a process that we have to set up right from the get go, from the
beginning, and it involves the sub's, the general contractor and the city. And you will, the city
will pay your invoices just like, just normal and included will be the sales tax. But on all
qualifying equipment, and the way it's worded it's a manufacturing facility so you're
manufacturing drinking water, and the process equipment for that is deductible. So then you'd
get reimbursed the sales tax that you paid. So we think that's about $300,000. The sewer
availability charge, that charge is about 2. Our fee and then it's got the base cost and the
alternate. And so talking to Paul this afternoon it sounded like the 10.5 was your project limit
and we're in the ballpark so I didn't tweak it. It's just the way it came out so.
Paul Oehme: Mr. Whittaker, can you just update the council a little bit too on our test well that
we just...
M-1
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
Jay Whittaker: Oh sure. Sure. The fast test well was not good. There was a lot of clay. Very
confined glacial drift aqua fir so we moved the second test well north of the tracks, like you said
in your introduction. The southwest quadrant of 101 and 5. And that was very good.
Mayor Furlong: 101 and?
Paul Oehme: 78"' Street.
Mayor Furlong: West 78"' Street.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, just for clarification. Our first test well was drilled on Lot 1 of the plan.
Right on site there. We did not find a good, suitable source of water at that location so we had to
move to this new location.
Jay Whittaker: Right. It was the closest site we could get and still be feasible for a short piping
run into the plant. The city owned the land. It was available. And it met the isolation distances
for the Department of Health. But that one turned out much better. Much better. The test wells
at 6 inch, 30 foot of screen and Traut Well's got 300 feet or 300 gallons per minute with a 6 foot
draw down. So it projects out to be about 1,000 to 1,200 gallon well for the production well.
We monitored with the city staff's help, what affect those wells, 2, 5 and 6 had and it basically
hasn't any. So we're expecting about... so it looks much better. Anything else?
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Whittaker, major changes between the 60% and the 90%?
Anything?
Jay Whittaker: Besides the test well, we relocated the crossing for the railroad track a little bit
farther east. Just to make it a little more, what was the word? Reduce, it would increase the
amount of land that you can sell Lot 2.
Mayor Furlong: That was the watermain?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, the watermain. We changed the alignment of the watermain location to
maximize the amount of Lot number 2 so that was one of the changes. I think some storm water
modification as well to eliminate some pipe. Decrease some other pipe sizing so we eliminated
some costs there. And then re-routed I think a little storm water as well too.
Councilman Lundquist: How did we net out on the last time, if I remember right we were
talking about the, some overflow that we were going to try to put into the Highway 5. We were
going to run it all the way along.
Jay Whittaker: That still has to go to the pond at the southeast corner of Lot 2. The existing
storm sewer just doesn't handle it.
Qc
City Council Meeting — ApA25, 2005 •
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so going into 5 turned out that that's not going to work? You
guys are looking at me like I'm talking Greek here.
Todd Gerhardt: They're getting to it.
Jay Whittaker: I think the request was to try to minimize or eliminate this pond... system that
crosses Highway 5.
Councilman Lundquist: Right.
Jay Whittaker: And we did look at that and at that size, that capacity of that existing facility just
isn't large enough. There's a retaining pond or a storage pond down at the next watershed which
I believe is.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, just north of Rice Lake and there's a storm water retention pond there that
serves as a significant drainage area and we looked at, we modeled that pond looking to capacity
and it's under designed right now for the existing watershed so we do have to meet our
requirements of storm water pond in this location.
Mayor Furlong: Is it, following up on that, is it less expensive to put the pond here? Long term,
all things considered then to expand the existing one.
Paul Oehme: Right. We looked at the expansion issue too and basically on 3 sides of that pond
it's wetland and the other side is the street embankment. So basically it's land locked right there.
There's no way to expand that pond.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess it sounds like other than the issue of the test well, which last time
at 60% we knew that the first one was bad. So we got good news on the second one. From 60 to
90 there's been no negative surprises or anything? It's just, basically it's coming together.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Todd Gerhardt: Will we be capping the test well that you put on on Lot i?
Jay Whittaker: The first one's been abandoned.
Todd Gerhardt: Oh it has? I see the cap is still above ground.
Paul Oehme: Oh, on West 78's Street?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
nil
0 •
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
Jay Whittaker: The second test well is still in place and it will be used as a monitoring well for
the product well, number 11. But the first test well should be abandoned. Per Minnesota
Department of Health standards.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions? Comments. Do you want us to consider your
motion?
Kate Aanenson: That would be good.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, if I could add one other thing is we may want to ask for citizen
comments at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Oh, excellent point. Welcome any citizen comments, public comments at this
point. If anybody would like to make comments on the, anything discussed tonight. Yes, please.
Kari Nettesheim: Kari Nettesheim, 9151 Great Plains Boulevard. Just you were saying that the
structure was going to incorporate looks of the bridge. Is that the wire part or the rock part?
Kate Aanenson: Both. Both.
Kari Nettesheim: Could we limit that to the rock part? That's lovely. The wire part is kind of
industrial looking and you said it looks more like a school. That doesn't look like the school.
That looks like prison kind of thing. And then also you said the trail was going to head back
east? And around. That kind of heads away from downtown and the library and theater and.
Kate Aanenson: Just so everybody can hear. Currently, if you want to look at the map while I'm
talking. Currently the trail comes up to the ped bridge, and it meets ADA. So it's kind of
circuitous as it comes up because it's very steep as you come up the rise of the hill. So we're
still going to maintain that. It wraps around. So if you don't want to go the long way around,
you could go straight across. Yep, so we gave two options.
Kari Nettesheim: Okay, thanks.
Kate Aanenson: There is too that we'll be apprising people of during construction as far as
access on that, because we know a lot of people use that going back and forth to school so we are
aware of that and we'll be, the City Engineer and myself have talked about that it will probably,
those that use it, the schools, of letting them know when it will be unavailable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: Kate, let's just point out where the stairs are on the shorter route though so
people who can handle those stairs.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right through here and that's the steeper one. That will be the stairs
going between two retaining walls on either side. But it will be out of commission for a little
41
0 •
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
while. We intend to let everybody know about that because we know people use it, and that's
why we also are still working to get the one across the railroad tracks too, yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments?
Dick Mingo: Back again. Dick Mingo. This is going to be east of Boondoggle Bridge, right?
Okay. And the other, was there a lot in there did I understand that's going to be available?
You're not going to plan on eventually selling a lot in that little narrow strip are you?
Kate Aanenson: This is the second lot.
Dick Mingo: Which one? Can you point that out? That's way to the east then.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Dick Mingo: And you think you're going to sell that for what? Coffee shop again. There used
to be a drive in you know on that comer. Years ago. Again Mr. Gene Coulter's spot.
Kate Aanenson: ... it would get access via this private drive. We're not giving access...
Dick Mingo: Is this going to be far enough away from Highway 5 as far as some big semi truck
losing control on the ice that it wouldn't plow into that water treatment plant in some way, shape
or form?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It's actually sitting up pretty high.
Dick Mingo: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Okay. Did you have?
Jim Norton: Mr. Mayor, if I can just make a couple of last minute comments. If we could just
look at this one more time. And this is a very tight site for construction and maybe you can kind
of point out where the pedestrian bridge is again but our intent is to have a temporary.
Kate Aanenson: Here's the ped bridge right here.
Jim Norton: Our intent is to have temporary fencing all the way around the site so that people
just can't meander and walk into the site and so that's going to close that pedestrian bridge.
There's going to be a lot of construction traffic going in and out of there and that's why we want
to have that temporary fencing up during that construction so that will be up there for quite a
while.
Kate Aanenson: And that's what we intend to let everybody know about that.
M
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. For those comments, thank you Mr. Gerhardt. At
this point, unless there's any other comments or discussion on the matter, we do have 3 motions.
Is there a motion from the council with regard to the 3 motions in the council packet?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve A, B, with conditions 1 through 25. C with
conditions 1 through 15 and based on the Findings of Fact, conditions 1 through 10 I'm sorry on
C. Motion C. In the planning packet.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none
we'll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
the Land Use Amendment from Parks and Open Space to Commercial contingent upon
Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
the preliminary plat for Gateway East 2"d Addition creating two lots and one oudot, plans
prepared by Hanson, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. dated February 9, 2005, revised
February 26, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the
following conditions:
The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100
year, 24 hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
2. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Submit storm
sewer sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and
approval.
3. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood
level. The minimum easement width must be 20 feet wide.
4. An access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 shall be recorded across Lot 1.
Submit a separate site plan, grading/drainageterosion control plan and utility plan.
6. Pedestrian ramps per City Detail Plate No. 5215 are required at the street crossing of the
proposed trail.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
43
City Council Meeting — Apri 2005
•
c. Show all proposed contour lines in bold.
d. Show the emergency overflow elevation from the proposed pond.
e. Show all proposed contours on the north side of the proposed trail and on Lot 2.
f. Do not show the proposed sanitary/water lines on the grading plan.
g. Show the proposed storm sewer to/from the pond.
8. On the site plan show the dimensions for street width, cul-de-sac radius, parking stalls,
trail, etc.
9. On the utility plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed utilities.
b. Show the proposed rim and invert elevations for all sanitary and storm sewer.
10. The proposed retaining wall along the north side of the backwash tanks will require a
building permit from the City's Building Department.
11. Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type I silt fence be
used along the entire south and west construction limits. A rock construction entrance,
per City Detail Plate No. 5301 must be added to the plans off of existing West 79`s Street.
In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All
disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Any off site grading will require an
easement from the appropriate property owner.
12. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City
of Chanhassen's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans, including plan and profile drawings of the proposed utilities, are
required to be submitted at the time of final plat.
13. Additional signage shall be installed alerting motorists to the blind approach near the
existing Hanus Building just west of the site.
14. The applicant shall work with the watershed district to provide regional water quality
infrastructure on this site.
15. The flow path and velocity of the water from the flared end sections to the storm water
shall be evaluated.
16. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) encompassing an erosion and
sediment control plan shall be developed for the site.
17. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans and details shall be developed.
0
City Council Meeting — April 25, 2005
18. Erosion control blanket shall be applied to the storm water pond and any disturbed areas
between the flared end sections and the pond, as well as on any slopes greater than or
equal to 3:1.
19. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared end sections.
20. 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
Steeper than 3:1
7 days (Maximum time an area can
10:1 to 3:1
14 days remain open when the area
Flatter than 10:1
21 days is not actively being worked.)
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.
21. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
22. Inlet protection shall be provided following installation. Wimco-type inlet controls are
recommended.
23. A rock construction entrance shall be provided from the site to West 790' Street.
24. Chanhassen Type I silt fence shall be installed around the south and east sides of the site.
25. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota
Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation), and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
Site Plan Review for a 12,500 square foot building for a water treatment plant and an 8,100
square foot back wash tank on Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway East 2°d Addition, including the
landscaping plan prepared by the applicant, based on the findings of fact attached to this
report and subject to the following conditions:
Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits in the southwest
corner of the property prior to any grading.
45
City Council Meeting — ApnP5, 2005 0
2. Staff will coordinate the transplanting of any existing maples prior to construction.
3. City staff and the water treatment plant consultants will research and determine if
alternative ground covers can be used over the underground tanks.
4. Where appropriate, seeding will replace sod with the exception of along the curb line,
trails and adjacent to the building.
5. The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
6. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
One accessible parking space with an access aisle must be provided.
8. The west wall of the building must be of one hour fire resistive construction as it is
located less than 30 feet from the property line. Openings in this wall must be in
accordance with the building code.
9. The building owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
10. A site survey must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Marcia and Mike Crist 6501 Welsley Court
Todd Hoffman: Good evening. Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council. As the mayor
said, the 2005 CIP includes the installation of 5 new playgrounds this year in various parks
across the city. All new, all 5 playground structures will be replacing out dated, wooded
playground equipment that's currently in existence in these parks. The wood structures are all
redwood. There's no treated wood in these structures. They've all been in place since about the
mid to late 1980's. At this time staff is seeking City Council approval to purchase 4 of the new
playgrounds. I'll go over those each briefly this evening. They are located at Chanhassen Hills
Park, Curry Farms Park, North Lotus Lake Park, and Rice Marsh Lake Park. The equipment
budget for each site was $40,000 with the exception of North Lotus, which was a little larger
park site. It's considered more of a, almost a community park and their budget was $45,000.
The RFP or Request for Proposal in the selection process allowed each neighborhood to
participate in the planning, the selection and installation of the playground. All 4 neighborhood
m
• r Ds-iz
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of City of Chanhassen
Subdivision, Land Use Amendment and Site Plan Review
On April 5, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the
application of the City of Chanhassen for a land use amendment from Parks and Open Space to Commercial,
preliminary plat approval creating two lots and one outlot and site plan approval. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning
Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Highway and Business Services District, BH.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Parks and Open Space.
3. The legal description of the property is: Gateway East 2°d Addition
4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of
the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are:
(1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
(2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not
limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
(3) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation,
susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for
the proposed development;
(4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal,
streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance;
(5) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage since the site was previously
developed;
(6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but will provide all necessary
easements; and
(7) The proposed subdivision is not premature since it is served by adequate city infrastructure. A subdivision
is premature if any of the following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
5. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the
following:
1
raouttao
• •
(1) The development is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
(2) The development is consistent with the site plan requirements;
(3) The development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the
neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
(4) The development is creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
(5) The development is creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable
environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
C. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and
the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of
location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points,
general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and
amount of parking.
(6) The development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design
not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
6. The planning report #05-12 dated April 5, 2005, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated
herein.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Land Use Amendment,
Preliminary Plat for Gateway East 2°d Addition and Site Plan Review for the East Water Treatment Plant.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of April, 2005.
CHANHASS G COMMISSION
Its Chairman
2
oS- 1Z
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
Papke: Second.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission appoint Jerry McDonald as
Vice Chairman of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: Alright. Now that we have that in place, I guess I'm going to have to sit in the middle
a little longer.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 12,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A
WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND AN 8,100 SQUARE FOOT BACK WASH TANK,
APPLICANT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE NO.05-12.
Public Present:
Name Address
Todd W. Perttu
203'/z Chan View
David Peters
Briarwood Court
Duane Day
St. Cloud SEH
Randal Leppala
St. Paul SEH
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Want to start on this side?
Papke: Bob, it wasn't quite clear to me what the access is. Where does the street come from on
the west side there?
Generous: Great Plains Boulevard and then West 79`s Street is the extension into it, so behind
the car wash and then Brown's Auto and the lube place. So it's that same street and it would just
extend that roadway down.
Papke: Okay. How will this impact the traffic, the foot bridge access and traffic? It looks like
the foot bridge, the bridge, foot bridge over Highway 5 is going to come down and then feed
onto the cul-de-sac there.
Generous: Nann, if we could go to the overhead. Yes, the foot bridge comes here. There
actually will be 2 connections over to the pedestrian. To the street. One would be the trail that
comes down and connects back to 5. Also loop back to West 79`b Street extension. Or you can
come down here and then there's a stairway and people can get to the sidewalk, and then cross
that and get on, take West 79`h Street.
Papke: And how does that differ from what exists today?
Planning Commission Meting — April 5, 2005 •
Generous: I believe, this just loops up to the end of the cul-de-sac which is right here. And this
part is the same. Coming back down the hill connecting to 5.
Papke: The only reason I'm so, oddly I run the Dave Huffman 5K every fall. You wouldn't
believe that I could actually do that. I know. It's dubious but, and this is towards the end and so
there's 500 or whatever people that are going to go trooping through there every September and I
was just curious as to how that will impact that particular.
Generous: I would think they'd run down the road and then come that way.
Papke: Okay, so that no issues.
Generous: I don't anticipate that being a problem. Unless they try to take that shortcut of course
on down the steps.
Papke: The views of the roof from the foot bridge and from some of the buildings that are going
to be on the other side of Highway 5, is there going to be a little bit of a view down on the
facility? Is the roof going to be visible at all?
Generous: I wonder, that might be a better question for the architect.
Duane Day: I'm Duane Day from SEH. There will be a small portion of the roof that's. This is
the view that you would have from your, from the bridge. And as you can see on this area here,
there is a small portion of standing seam metal roof that would be visible.
Papke: You think that will be a reasonably aesthetic view given, is that glass block that I, one of
those windows? What's the composition of those windows? Pseudo glass block.
Duane Day: Those windows are actually an insulated translucent panel. This panel, as was
mentioned, does diffuse light so that if you're inside you don't get a real glare. It also has a very
high insulation value compared to glass, and is much stronger. We are planning to have those
windows located in these areas and in front of them we will be using a grill very similar to the
pattern of the railing that's on the bridge. We have really looked to the bridge as an inspiration
for our design. And we have also, will repeat that then again on the ramp railings and stair
railings.
Sacchet: Deborah, you have any questions?
Zorn: No.
Sacchet: Jerry.
McDonald: Yeah, I've got some questions. First one deals with orientation of where all this is
at. You've got a traffic circle that's currently down there. Where does that overlay on the map
for all this with the new road and everything?
Duane Day: I can trace that. The current circle comes down around and then back out.
4
O3WPA5s
Planning Commission Meting — April 5, 2005 •
McDonald: Okay. So we're going to eliminate the circle and this is going to set pretty much
where the circle currently is then. On the bridge, currently now you can come across the bridge
and you've got kind of a straight shot. Is there anyway to do away with those steps and make
that more of a ramp down through there? And what I'm thinking about, I know a lot of people
ride bicycles across that, or you know just walking but is the, I know the elevation, that's
probably the steepest spot as far as the elevation.
Duane Day: That is the steepest spot. We're looking at an elevation difference somewhere
approximately 10 feet. That's why we will extend the bicycle, well the trail that will be
completely handicapped accessible or bicycle accessible.
McDonald: Okay. And the other question I've got for the city, by the time we go and we put all
this in and you look at the lot that's left down there, what kind of use do you see for that? I
know you say that it may be used for a city building or maybe we're going to look at something
in the future. An office building or something, but you've sandwiched everything in between a
railroad tracks to the north. That land kind of begins to get kind of small down there. I don't
think there's going to be much room left for any parking of any facility. What did you have in
mind to put down there.
Aanenson: The city does own that entire piece of property. As Bob indicated, that was a Red-E-
Mix site. It was actually a heavy industrial type use there. And when the bridge went in, at that
time we were contemplating a larger park there. Going back to the original use, because the city
owns it and the commercial nature, certainly we would look at a use that's probably not a high
destination, traffic trip generator. So we look at it could be an office destination so we would
look at that carefully based on trip generation.
McDonald: Okay. If it were to be an office, what would you do about parking?
Aanenson: We've looked at site plans actually when we did the subdivision to see if that could
work, and it's going to take a specific use that would meet that. Couldn't fit on there. Again,
getting access off of Great Plains is difficult because of the railroad tracks and you're too close
to Highway 5 frontage for the turn movement there so really the only way to get access would be
via this road.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other thing you're wanting to do is to exceed the diameter of
circles. You want to go to 60 feet here. Is that because of the type of vehicles that may be
coming, or radius. I'm sorry, the radius of the circle I think is to 60 feet. Is that because of the
type of vehicles that will be coming back in for water treatment and everything?
Saam: Yes. Yes, that's exactly why. Semi's delivering chemicals once a month. And just for
ease of movements turning around that, that's exactly the reason.
McDonald: Okay, and that gives you enough room then for that and everything.
Saam: Yes, again it's larger than our standard commercial cul-de-sac radius of 48 so that's why
we don't have any issue with it. I mean it's plenty large.
5
9 •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
McDonald: Okay. And then the other concern I had was again because of the width of that,
there's a steep bank right there where the railroad tracks go. How close are we actually going to
be to that? Are we going to impact any of that to where you've got to worry about anything on
the, I guess the little valley that the train tracks run through. Because there's not a lot of room
there.
Saam: Yeah, oh go ahead.
Duane Day: I was just going to point out, right now the road is slated boundary is right here.
And the valley that you're referring to basically starts at this point going down here and then
coming back up.
McDonald: Okay, so we're not going to have to worry about having to put in any retaining walls
or any of those things?
Duane Day: No, not on that site.
McDonald: Okay. All the questions I had.
Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Debra. Debbie. Deborah. Eventually get it. Debbie.
Larson: I answer to both.
Sacchet: Any questions? Mark? Dan?
Keefe: Yeah, just had a couple quick ones. Parking for this. The requirement is just one space
for this building, is that what I'm reading in here?
Generous: They have 4.
Keefe: Yeah, but the requirement is only 1.
Generous; It's mostly storage.
Keefe: Yeah, but in the conditions I think it says that 1 accessible parking space with an access
be provided. That is all we have to provide for this?
Generous: Well they're providing.
Keefe: They're providing more it looks like. It looks like.
Duane Day: That is accessible.
Generous: Handicap access.
Keefe: Oh okay. One handicap accessible parking space, okay. But in terms of the amount of
parking that's required per building, of this use, we've got more than enough?
0
Planning Commission Met — April 5, 2005 •
Generous: Yes. What the water superintendent told me, there's I person that will probably be
there.
Keefe: Yeah, alright. But in terms of code for this type of building.
Aanenson: Correct, and that's based on the square footage. There's office that you'd use and
then the warehouse of the water treatment plan doesn't require parking. So it's just based on that
office component part that the parking standards are derived from.
Keefe: Okay so, alright. So we're fine in regards to that. I don't know much about water
treatment plants but in terms of the pool, is there like odor which comes out of these things and
how do we deal with that? I understand the pool's underground but can you speak to any of that
at all?
Saam: Yeah, I mean I'm not an expert. I toured a few water treatment plants and I guess from
an outside, at least in my experience, you don't notice any odor. Again we're different than a
sewer treatment plant. Those things do stink.
Keefe: Yeah, but I mean you do have water that's just sitting there and a potential bacteria could
buildup. I don't know.
Saam: Yeah, the water that's sitting there for the most part has been treated. There's some
coming in that when it goes through the filter and then the backwash tanks it's still dirty, if you
will, but it's mostly, for the most part it's moving around. It's not like we're storing a large
amount of dirty water, if that's what you're getting at that. That isn't happening.
Keefe: Yeah, so at least from your understanding we really probably shouldn't see any sort of
odor or?
Saam: No, and I'll give you an example. I live in Savage. There's a water treatment plant there
at the end of a residential cul-de-sac which we toured, so that, it's been there 5 years and the city
there told us the neighbors love it because never have parties you know. There's no stench or
anything like that so, I mean that's a great case in point where the places don't stink.
Keefe: Okay. One last question in regards to you know, at one point I guess this land was set
aside for parks and open space, something along that line. Was there envisioned that, and it was
sort of a gateway to Chanhassen. Was it envisioned that we would have some sort of a entry
signage to Chanhassen at that location and would that be something we would consider as a part
of this, just since it's a city owned?
Aanenson: Sure, that's a good question, and actually I'll back a little bit on that. When the
bridge got put in place, over on the Legion site it was contemplated at that time that actually that
would be the Southwest Metro Park and Ride so when we put in for the ISTEA money, or the
funding to get the pedestrian bridge over Highway 5. The rationale was anticipated that there'd
actually be a park and ride there. The Red-E-Mix site was really just to clean up that horrible use
and the trips that were right in the core of downtown and the fill that was going on with that, so
the reason it got converted to the parks open space at that time was really the touch down point
of the bridge and Bill Morrish who was working with the City, he was with the University of
bl
Planning Commission Meeting —April 5, 2005
Minnesota, had recommended some entrance landscape areas so we contemplated actually just
doing, we went through a lot of different iterations of doing signs and monuments and we had
big maple leafs and kind of moved back to what are we about. We're about trees and so actually
they kind of came up with the plan, just doing landscaping and if you look, that was one of the
things we talk about. There is some significant trees that are out in front of what is now, what
we call the old Harms building. So that was one of the issues that, and Jill's been working, our
Forester's been working to re -vegetate that slope but really that's kind of what the goal was and
not to put a monument sign but just something more subtle and that would be trees in that area.
Keefe: Now we're actually going to be reserving a lot to the east of that, so presumably that
would be another building which would go in.
Aanenson: The right building. It's got to fit on the lot.
Keefe: Yeah, right. Okay. And we're not anticipating any signage on this building other than
maybe Chanhassen Water Treatment Facility or?
Duane Day: I think we'll be down to as little as just having the street address on it. We don't
want to call attention to it.
Keefe: Okay, that's it.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'd like to dig a little further into what you just brought up Dan. So you're
saying originally when it was condemned was just to clean it up primarily. But we had this
vision at the time to make it like a park like, open space gateway so we're totally abandoning
that at this point?
Aanenson: Correct. It was never, that was an idea, it was never implemented into our ordinance.
There was a couple different versions of that. Actually Bill Morrish proposed one of them.
Then Hoisington-Koegler actually did another version of that, and that was kind of Vision 2000,
which called out different vegetation upon different intersections in town. One being a sugar
maple. One being an oak, but that was never really carried through into an ordinance format.
We always go back to saying, you know when we do those entrance things, we kind of fall back
on heavily landscaping because that's what, no matter what corner we're at, that says a lot about
who we are. Just the trees and that sort of thing.
Sacchet: Now you say there are several types of uses that could go onto that extra parcel.
Because it seems to be quite a significant change of direction at least with what was considered
over the years. Do we have somebody who's interested in it or do we have an idea of what to
do?
Aanenson: Yes, we've had calls on it, yes over the past, yeah.
Sacchet: And so we also have some ideas what the City could do with it?
Aanenson: Sure. I mean I think, those are the things that we always have to weigh. You know
somebody holding onto it for some other use.
Planning Commission Mee — April 5, 2005 •
Sacchet: What would the city do with it? Do we have anything specific that would fit there?
Aanenson: Not at this time.
Sacchet: Okay. Ahight. At this goint do we have a variance in there? It says in the staff report
a variance for setback to West 79 Street.
Generous: That went away when we took the dedication of additional right-of-way out.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's not an issue anymore. The retaining wall, the retaining wall next to the
access road on the north side of the underground tank I guess you call that. Seems to be pretty
big. I mean it says 6 to 10 feet. And I'm a little bit at a loss. I don't really fully see the grading
lines on the plan. I had a little bit hard time envisioning what the grading is actually taking place
and I wonder whether you could give us a little bit of an idea how that works.
Duane Day: Basically what we're doing with that is breaking that up into two shorter retaining
walls rather than going with one huge wall. There'd be a retaining wall that would be right
adjacent in here with a second retaining wall, excuse me. With a second retaining wall behind it
about 10 feet.
Sacchet: So the road is lower than the building there?
Duane Day: The road is lower than the building, yes.
Sacchet: By about how much?
Duane Day: We have set the building actually up approximately 4 feet from the, to create a
loading dock which, and from that, the pavement at the loading dock out to the street slopes
down another foot.
Sacchet: Okay. So we're going to have about 5 feet then?
Duane Day: There'd be approximately 5 feet to the street itself, yes.
Sacchet: And the reason why we have to put the retaining wall in is that we don't have to dig as
deep to put the tank down or how does that compute?
Duane Day: We have a problem with the water level.
Sacchet: Oh it has to obviously be...
Duane Day: We have to be above the water table.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Alright, so that makes the requirement. Okay, and then I have a detail
question. It's probably one for you as the architect as well. On the, like we have that loading
dock at the western end of the building and that gets access from the north side.
Duane Day: That's correct.
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
Sacchet: Now it seems like on the south side however it also has an opening door just on the
opposite side of the building and I was just.
Duane Day: Is this what you are referring to sir?
Sacchet: Yes. Is that actually an opening door or it seems like on the plan there was.
Duane Day: No, actually what that is, it's a large louver. Inside that room we will have an
emergency standby generator and in order to cool the generator we have to run a large amount of
air.
Sacchet: So it's a door to let in air basically, if you would have to run the generator?
Duane Day: It's a louver to let in air, yes.
Aanenson: Like a shutter.
Sacchet: A shutter, okay. Alright, that's my questions. Thank you very much.
Duane Day: You're welcome.
Sacchet: Now how, any other questions? Yes, go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: Just a follow-up. You'd said that there were roughly 3 sites. What's the other sites
you looked at and why did you determine that this was the best site to put this on?
Saam: I'm sorry, I didn't catch the question Commissioner McDonald.
McDonald: Okay. During the presentation you had mentioned I think there were 3 other sites
you had looked at and you had chosen this one. What were the 3 other sites and why did you
choose this one? What makes this a better site than the others?
Saam: Did you mention 3 sites Bob? I guess I wasn't.
McDonald: I could be wrong.
Saam: The reason I know that we took, or chose this one. First of all we own the property so we
didn't have to secure land which is costly in Chanhassen. So we own the property. It's
geographically it's close to an existing well field just to the north. We have 3 wells there. Wells
2, 5 and 6, and the way, in a perfect world you'd like to have your treatment plant as close to
your wells because if you think about it, you pump up the raw water with the well. You get it to
the treatment plant. Treat it and then you disperse it from there so we don't want to for instance
have the treatment plant a mile from all the wells and have to have all this piping and that sort of
thing. So geography wise we own the property. But we still had to check with consultants
Department of Health on the design of the building. They have certain requirements... If there
were wetlands on the site. You know we still had to do a site investigation to make sure it would
fit here.
10
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
McDonald: Okay, so of all the sites you looked at this one meets all the criteria that we need to
put this plant in Chanhassen.
Saam: Correct.
McDonald: Okay.
Sacchet: Okay, good questions. Alright, if there are no further questions. Now the City is
actually the applicant so we already heard from the City obviously so we go to the public
hearing. At this point I'd like to invite anybody who'd like to address this item in front of us to
come forward and tell us if you have any comments. Yes, if you would step up to the podium
and move the microphone your way please. State your name and address for the record.
Todd Perttu: Yeah, my name's Todd Perttu. I live on the 200 block of Chan View. I probably
wouldn't have moved there if I thought that there was a water treatment plant going up a block
away from me. And certainly I could expect less for my house if I was to sell it with that water
treatment plant there. I wasn't really assured with the person going to a different water treatment
plant and somebody saying well they'd rather have a treatment plant there than a party. Not
reassured that there might not be loaders. I'll probably be able to see this from my back deck
and.
Sacchet: You're just across from.
Keefe: The north side or?
Sacchet: The north side, yeah.
Todd Perttu: Yeah.
Aanenson: Can you zoom in?
Todd Perttu: I've got the odd shaped lot right there.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you for pointing that out.
Todd Perttu: If there is odors and everything else, is there something, some kind of recourse that
we've got to take to come back on?
Sacchet: Well we do have ordinances for the city in terms of, what nuisance ordinances that
cover odors.
Saam: Did you want me to address that?
Sacchet: Yes, maybe we could just briefly address that please.
Saam: I would think certainly if there were odors that would happen at a site like this, while we
don't expect them, I would think that the city would do whatever we need to do to correct those.
There are certain things, scrubbers, that sort of thing that business industry use, but again this
11
• •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
isn't going to be like an industrial. It's not like General Mills/Pillsbury's going to be moving in
next door. Really I don't expect any odors there but if there would be some, definitely the City
would I would hope step up to the plate and correct them.
Todd Perttu: Okay. I'm going to be able to probably see this from my back deck. Is there any
plans for a wall or anything else that might be near the railroad tracks? Between the railroad
tracks on the north side of the tracks or anything else to maybe block the vision or view of this.
Sacchet: I'm not sure whether that would be feasible with the elevations.
Keefe: You know one of the things I did notice in the write up was, it looked like the
landscaping plan there were, it looks like there was going to be an extra number of trees. An
extra amount of landscaping. Could somebody speak to the landscaping? Because it looks like
the number of trees at least that are required are geez you know like 5 on the Highway 5 side and
you've got 23 scheduled.
Generous: Well they have, this is a landscaping plan. They have this area in here. There's 5
trees proposed in that. There's some shrubs, understory trees. However you know my question
to you is, have you seen this building elevation? It's a block building with glass. That's you
know.
Aanenson: I think that's what might be helpful if we can just meet with this gentleman and get a
point from his house showing what he would see. Because he's actually a ways...
McDonald: Well the other thing too, in that particular area there's already a number of trees
there. This is directly behind the graveyard where the building's going to go in...
Aanenson: That's my point. We can meet with him and try to resolve that.
McDonald: Yeah, because I don't believe that sight's going to be a problem.
Sacchet: Would that satisfy you to meet with staff and then talk through it specifically what it
does from your angle?
Todd Perttu: Sure, as long as.
Sacchet: Do you want to come up once more?
Todd Perttu: Maybe we could put up that, not this last slide but the one prior to that showing
where the tanks are. I wasn't really sure where that was in relation to where the bike trail...
Generous: There's the tanks but they're all underground. There's 7 retaining walls to the north
of that. That's what you'll see is landscaping and the retaining walls. Not a tank, and then this
will just be green space that goes down to the trail system.
Sacchet: The tank is underground so and I think from your side, that's mostly what you see is
the green space.
12
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005 •
Todd Perttu: Yeah, that's the big thing. I thought maybe I was going to be seeing the tanks.
Sacchet: Alright. Well I'm glad we were able to put that one to rest. I would be concerned
about that too. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing nobody,
are you? No? You want to speak up?
David Peters: I would just like to ask one quick question.
Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you come up. Ask your question. That's what the public hearing is
for. And if you want to state your name and address, just for the record please.
David Peters: My name's David Peters. I live on Briarwood Court. I just wouldlike to know
whether or not this facility would eliminate other facilities of this nature in other parts of
Chanhassen.
Sacchet: Can you address that? I guess that would be a question for you Matt.
Saam: Sure. The current plan, well I can say this won't treat all of our water. But the current
plan is this is the first of 2 planned plants in town. Now nothing has happened on the second
one. In fact we don't even own the land yet, but the plan is to build a future second one. To treat
the remainder basically of the pump water in town.
Keefe: And Matt, just to clarify, there isn't a water treatment facility like this in Chanhassen is
there?
Saam: No.
Keefe: This will be the first of it's kind in the city.
Sacchet: No, it's my understanding, I think I just got an actually notice in the mail that there is
an information session next week, is it Thursday?
Saam: The 10.
Sacchet: On the 14`s about the consideration of location near Galpin for, because that would then
be the second water treatment plant that you're referring to, okay. And that's probably what
you're asking about too.
David Peters: In regards to that, could this plant then be increased in size so that no other plant
would be necessary?
Saam: Based on what I know of it, no. Just because of the site constraints. We're so tight there
as it is that I don't believe we have plans for future. Exactly, and like I mentioned before, we
have some wells in the Galpin area. It wouldn't make any sense to try to get those wells to come
here just based on piping costs and all that so.
David Peters: What chemicals are used?
13
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
Sacchet: Do we know?
Saam: Yeah, basically there's a chlorinator. There's an oxidizer to take out the iron and
manganese. That's the big problem. And then there's fluoride that we have to go on.
David Peters: It only takes one person, so if there's, I assume they're there to run the equipment.
How loud is the equipment? And does it run 24 hours so that people are going to hear that
equipment outside the building 24 hours a day?
Saam: I don't believe again as with smell that noise is going to be a problem here. As far as
equipment, a lot of this will be automated. The way you like the plants to work is that they work
at night when, basically because the electricity is cheap then and a lot of people aren't using the
water. So at night they say pump the water, clean it. Get it all out and ready, and then during the
day hopefully, maybe in July it won't happen but they can pretty much shut down or do some
other processes that won't use up a lot of power. But yeah, we only plan on one full time person
here so a lot of it will be automated.
David Peters: And when was the other meeting for the potential other site?
Saam: It's next Thursday. April 14`s.
Sacchet: The 10.
Aanenson: In this room.
Sacchet: In this room at what time?
Generous: 6:00 p.m..
Sacchet: 6:00 p.m..
David Peters: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else have a comment to this topic? Seeing nobody, I'll close the
public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments. Want to start on
this side?
Keefe: Sure. I generally support this plan. I think it seems like it's a nicely designed building.
They've upgraded the landscaping from what the requirements are, which I think is positive.
Pleased that the tanks are underground. I think from a landscaping and from an aesthetics
standpoint that helps a lot, and it seems like they've addressed the paths and the walkways so I'm
comfortable with it.
Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Mark, any comment?
Undestad: I just agree with Dan. Great project, yeah.
Sacchet: Ditto. Debbie.
14
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005 •
Larson: My original thought was, what it would like to the residents that are nearby when I was
reading this and I thought oh no. And then after I saw the plan and what they're doing, you
know they're going beyond the required amount of trees and shrubbery and it looks like they've
got a wonderful design, kind of making it a park looking site which was somewhat the original
plan anyhow. I'm agreeing with this as well.
Sacchet: Okay. Jerry.
McDonald: Actually any concerns I had were pretty much answered in the questions and
everything. You seem to have taken everything into account from engineering and architectural
standpoint. The only concern I would have is that lot down to the east end but I.don't see that as
being significant enough to oppose this so I'd be in favor of it.
Sacchet: Thank you. Deborah.
Zorn: I agree with comments that were made.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: I think the aesthetics are really exemplary. It seems to almost evoke, I don't know if this
was conscious or not but it seems to almost evoke the library design as well. Was that?
Duane Day: We looked at that building...
Papke: Yeah, yeah. And so from that perspective I think the biggest complaint we might have
on this is, it doesn't look like a water treatment plant. I mean it almost looks like a school or
something so I wonder how many people will be fooled as to what's actually there. The only
concern I have at this point is, back to the noise issue. When the emergency generator runs,
those things aren't quiet. Now you know, the best scenario, it won't run very often. You'll
probably run it more for testing purposes than you will under actual situation where it needs to
operate. But that's the only concern I have at this point, from a noise perspective or anything
like that is the emergency generator.
Randal Leppala: I'm Randal Leppala. I'm with SEH and a project designer that did the initial
layout of this plant. The emergency generator room has a sound attenuator packets on it and
they're sized and designed to keep the noise at the Minnesota State restrictions on what db noise
you can have at the property line, so this will be designed to reduce the noise at the property line
to the levels.
Aanenson: I just want to add too, and the louvers are facing the freeway which was a design
feature.
Sacchet: Alright, thanks Kurt. I don't have too much to add. My one concern is that empty
parcel to the east. I do believe this is an ideal place for the water treatment plant because it
doesn't need much traffic access. It fits in, even though it has to be a little sandwiched but I
think they did an admirable job doing that, and it looks like a really attractive building. And
considering the tank is under water and all that, I really think that aesthetically it's not going to
15
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
be an issue. With your assurance about the noise and before what we said about the smells, I
don't think that should be an issue. And as we said before, the city does have ordinances that put
a lid on that sort of stuff as it is. But my concern that the lot to the east, it seems like it's really a
pretty big jump from having a park like open space as an entrance to the city to all of a sudden
have a lot that could be sold commercially. I have a little bit of problem with that personally but
that's not really the key point of this application in front of us. I certainly would want to stress
that it's going to be rather a delicate thing to fit something in there that traffic wise first of all,
it's compatible with the very restrictive access that 79d' Street provides, and then also to be
compatible with the idea that this is kind of the first look at the downtown when people come in.
I mean that's why we got rid of the Red-E-Mix I would expect to a large extent, and why we
thought maybe the landscaping would be the proper thing to have there. So I want to emphasize
that concern, but that's obviously not a reason to hold up this water treatment plant so that's my
comment. With that, I'm willing to take a motion.
Papke: Do we need 3 or can we do this in one?
Sacchet: We can do this in one.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: Right?
Aanenson: Yes.
Papke: Okay. I make a motion, I make 3 motions that the first of all A, the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use amendment for parks and open
space to commercial. And B, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Gateway East 2°d Addition creating two lots, one outlot and right-of-way
for West 79d' Street, plans prepared by Hanson Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. dated February 9,
2005, revised February 26, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject
to conditions 1 through 25. And C, I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
approves the site plan review for a 12,500 square foot building for a water treatment plant and an
8.100 square foot backwash tank on Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway East 2°d Addition based on the
findings of fact attached to this report and subject to conditions 1 through 10.
Sacchet: Wow, that's a long one. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Keefe: Attempt a friendly amendment to.
Sacchet: Well let's do a second first.
McDonald: I second the motion.
Keefe: Propose friendly amendment. There's nothing in here in regards to the landscaping that
is proposed in here. I mean do we typically add in where the city or the applicant would adhere
to the proposed.
Sacchet: It's part of the plan, isn't it?
MT'
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
Aanenson: Yeah, it's as shown on site plan dated would include the landscaping plan. If you
want to just add something, including landscaping plan.
Keefe: Including proposed landscaping plan, or landscaping plan as proposed by the applicant.
Papke: That's acceptable.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other aspects? Alright.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Land Use Amendment from Parks and Open Space to Commercial. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Gateway East 2°d Addition creating two lots, one outlot and right-
of-way for West 790' Street, plans prepared by Hanson, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. dated
February 9, 2005, revised February 26, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to this
report and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100
year, 24 hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
2. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Submit storm
sewer sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and
approval.
3. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood
level. The minimum easement width must be 20 feet wide.
4. An access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 shall be recorded across Lot 1.
5. Submit a separate site plan, grading/drainage/erosion control plan and utility plan.
6. Pedestrian ramps per City Detail Plate No. 5215 are required at the street crossing of the
proposed trail.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Show all proposed contour lines in bold.
d. Show the emergency overflow elevation from the proposed pond.
e. Show all proposed contours on the north side of the proposed trail and on Lot 2.
f. Do not show the proposed sanitary/water lines on the grading plan.
g. Show the proposed storm sewer to/from the pond.
17
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
8. On the site plan show the dimensions for street width, cul-de-sac radius, parking stalls,
trail, etc.
9. On the utility plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed utilities.
b. Show the proposed rim and invert elevations for all sanitary and storm sewer.
10. The proposed retaining wall along the north side of the backwash tanks will require a
building permit from the City's Building Department.
11. Proposed erosion control must be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that Type I silt fence be
used along the entire south and west construction limits. A rock construction entrance,
per City Detail Plate No. 5301 must be added to the plans off of existing West 79th Street.
In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All
disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Any off site grading will require an
easement from the appropriate property owner.
12. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City
of Chanhassen's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans, including plan and profile drawings of the proposed utilities, are
required to be submitted at the time of final plat.
13. Additional signage shall be installed alerting motorists to the blind approach near the
existing Hanus Building just west of the site.
14. The applicant shall work with the watershed district to provide regional water quality
infrastructure on this site.
15. The flow path and velocity of the water from the flared end sections to the storm water
shall be evaluated.
16. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) encompassing an erosion and
sediment control plan shall be developed for the site.
17. Temporary and permanent erosion control plans and details shall be developed.
18. Erosion control blanket shall be applied to the storm water pond and any disturbed areas
between the flared end sections and the pond, as well as on any slopes greater than or
equal to 3:1.
19. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared end sections.
20. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Tvne of Slone Time
In
E
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
F-I
Steeper than 3:1
7 days
10:1 to 3:1
14 days
Flatter than 10:1
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
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.
21. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
22. Inlet protection shall be provided following installation. Wimco-type inlet controls are
recommended.
23. A rock construction entrance shall be provided from the site to West 79`s Street.
24. Chanhassen Type I silt fence shall be installed around the south and east sides of the site.
25. 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, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota
Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation), and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Site Plan Review for a 12,500 square foot building for a water treatment plant and an
8,100 square foot back wash tank on Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway East 2°d Addition, including
the landscaping plan prepared by the applicant, based on the findings of fact attached to
this report and subject to the following conditions:
Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits in the southwest
corner of the property prior to any grading.
2. Staff will coordinate the transplanting of any existing maples prior to construction.
3. City staff and the water treatment plant consultants will research and determine if
alternative ground covers can be used over the underground tanks.
4. Where appropriate, seeding will replace sod with the exception of along the curb line,
trails and adjacent to the building.
5. The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
6. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
19
Planning Commission Meeting — April 5, 2005
7. One accessible parking space with an access aisle must be provided.
8. The west wall of the building must be of one hour fire resistive construction as it is
located less than 30 feet from the property line. Openings in this wall must be in
accordance with the building code.
9. The building owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
10. A site survey must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, CHAPTER 20, SECTION 20-1564, BLUFF CREEK
OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Any? Jerry, go ahead.
McDonald: Can you explain to me what you just said about the fact that we created a problem,
because I'm not following that part of it. What did get rescinded?
Generous: What was it, prior to 1998 the City did not have a Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance that
required setbacks from the primary zone. Before that time we had lots of, specifically single
family developments that had taken place within the corridor and they were, the lots had been
built upon. And often times they were built within the primary zone.
McDonald: Yep, there's an example for that right here.
Generous: Yes, and so we based this ordinance on the bluff protection ordinance which allowed
the city adopted after development had taken place and we sort of said existing setbacks could
remain. Well we adopted that and then we went through the entire zoning ordinance and we
wanted to originally amend the wording. The specific section of the ordinance and we had
changed the whole ordinance and by just changing that word, by not re -codifying what was
adopted, we repealed it. And so we want to un-repeal it. That's what the attorney told me I had
to do.
McDonald: Okay. So everything within the primary zone will now be able to protect and with it
being appealed, that was a problem.
Generous: Well only for existing, the existing developed lots.
McDonald: Okay, so that way we don't have to do variances and all the.
20