CC Minutes 04-12-2010Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
approving the elimination of parcels from Tax Increment Financing District Number 4. If you want to
reference those three resolutions as a part of your motion, that would be appropriate.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Absolutely. Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: I’ll second that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the three motions, resolutions have been moved and seconded. Is there any
discussion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2010-32: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City
Council approve a Resolution adopting modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown
Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area; and establishing Tax Increment Financing District No.
10 therein and establishing a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Resolution #2010-33: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City
Council approve a Resolution approving the elimination of parcels from Tax Increment Financing
District No. 4 located within the Downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area in the City of
Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
LAKESIDE TOWNHOMES: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT TO LAKESIDE; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR 22 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) AND LOCATED ON OUTLOTS B AND E,
LAKESIDE. APPLICANT: RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION. OWNER: HOME FEDERAL
SAVINGS, PLANNING CASE 10-06.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. As you stated the developer, Ron Clark
Construction is requesting an amendment to the PUD to convert two of the condominium buildings into
22 twin home units as well as revisions to the design standards regarding setbacks. The current project
also includes a subdivision approval for 22 twin home lots with a variance for a 20 foot private street as
well as a site plan approval for the 22 twin homes. This item did appear before the Planning Commission
th
with a public hearing on March 16 and they did recommend 6-0 to approve the project. The site is
located just south of 212. The eastern boundary is Eden Prairie, the Bearpath and then on the south is
bordered by Lake Riley and then on the western side is the North Bay project. Just wanted to point out
one of the questions that came up too from the North Bay residents was just making sure the construction
access, as it was with the first phase, goes through that street as opposed to the common shared driveway.
That did occur with the first phase but we did include that as a condition of approval too so we did track
that one. The original concept project included 231 units. Lots A, B, and C were proposed for
condominium units consisting of 92 total units and the rest of the development, Charles Cudd and
Wooddale contributed to the other 67 units that were put in place. At the time that this PUD was put in
place we had a structure requirement as far as setbacks. We’ve amended that to be not so prescriptive but
rather project based so there is no minimum requirement, especially when there’s nothing to buffer
against. When there’s a street or something so I’ll explain that as we get to that specific issue. But again
the PUD to, the intent is to modify the PUD to reference the underlying zoning district, which is R-16.
Both of this project and North Bay project were high density. Two pieces that had the entitlement for
residential high density. The permitted use was amended so that Building C, if I can go back to that for a
second. Building C in the back still would have entitlements for higher density. Could capture some of
that range within that. Again we only have so many pieces in the city that are guided that high density so
8
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
what it takes away is from Buildings A and B, reduces that. And then the PUD, the permitted use that’s
specified, as I said the one condominium use and then revise the setbacks on the eastern property line.
Again that prescriptive, if I can go back to the site plan I think is a little bit more illustrative. You’ve got
the swimming pool on the one side along Lyman Boulevard and then the condominium is set back taller
which allowed a height of I believe approximately 48 feet so significantly higher. Again this is an
example, there’s nothing across the street. You’ve got the right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard and then
the lake so it becomes punitive if you’re trying to introduce a different product. If this was to come in as
a straight subdivision with a twin home, the minimum setback would be 30 feet so we’re actually making
it consistent with kind of how, with not kind of but exactly how the use is being proposed and that would
be a twin home project so we’d be consistent with that. Yes it’s less setback than the other project but
based on the size of those parcels it’s difficult to try to get a twin home project on. So the subdivision
with the variance, the two common as I stated, the A and B would be part of this subdivision. The
variance would be allowed a 20 foot versus a 4 foot and I’ll show you that in the, in one second but this is
the subdivision creating the twin home lots. Again the developer worked to look at the arrangement of
the lots to make it the most efficient layout of those. I wouldn’t say to maximize but really to make it the
most efficient. Again based on the proposed condominium use it really was laid up, you can see the
shapes, a rather unique and actually be given an efficient layout. So this one is illustrative of the street
width and you can see within that the units that are being served, instead of the 24 foot right there it’s the
20 foot is the variance we’re asking for. The fire marshal felt comfortable with that. Actually the first
two units can also be served by the other drive so it’s really just the two units on the most southerly end
that’s really being, the only ones that are being affected by that narrower one and that would be Units 5
and 6 on that Lot 3. Would be the only ones that are being serviced directly by that 20 foot driveway.
The other ones have the two common streets there. Utility plan. Pretty straight forward. Grading plan.
There are some retaining walls in there. It’s hard to see. I don’t know if you can point to those at all Paul
where the retaining wall’s on the north side. And then, yeah. And then there’s one up along the other
road, I believe on the, yes. Right there. And we’ve tried to describe those so they are itemized in the staff
report against balancing the dirt that’s up there. The preliminary landscaping plan does meet
requirements. So for the site plan review as I stated it’s the two twin homes. Lookout ramblers for the 5
buildings. There’s 3 distinct plans. I think probably the best way to describe them, you know the 32 and
the 36 is just to show you how they lay out on the site. The architecture matches. There’s an existing
club house, swimming pool that’s up there right now and that’s that one building next to the pond with
the pool, and these are the different ones. Again they took advantage of the lake views. Those units that
could have views overlooking the lake and then reversing that on the other units so they all take
advantage, depending on the layout, of the views of the lake. The other interesting note, if you go back to
the variances, which we always work to try to differentiate designs. They’re not all front loaded. You
can see as an example here which adds to the width of that, as they’re also, some of these are side loaded
so for this one you have a front entrance on the garage side. The other one’s actually a side loaded which
makes them unique, differentiation in the units themselves which is always something that we try to
achieve too so some of that is again driving the width of the design. And then the 32 foot wide and then
the twin home style. Or excuse me, the 36 foot wide one. So this is looking at, on Lyman Boulevard the
changing grade. Significant change of grade from the street itself and that’s showing the 30 foot setback
from the right-of-way. And this is a perspective from the back. And then this was another question that
came up at the Planning Commission from the residents in the Bearpath neighborhood to show kind of an
illustrative of these units. The Ron Clark project is, product is a little bit smaller in scale than the Cudd
and the Wooddale Builders so the tallest line you see up there is, would have been the condominium
units. That dashed line on the top of the slide. And then the second one would be, if they were the
Wooddale or the Cudd type product and then this little bit, this lower profile of this product. So again the
staff’s position is, we did create that flexibility in the PUD and looking at the units themselves, the
smaller scale and the height that we felt comfortable, and the orientation, that we felt comfortable with the
standards of the PUD. And I believe that was the last slide I have except for the recommendation. Again
9
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
there’s the approval of the subdivision. Approval of the site plan agreement. Excuse me, approval of the
subdivision with the variance. Approval of the site plan agreement and then adoption of the Findings of
Fact so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson on the setback issue and the question.
Maybe going back to.
Kate Aanenson: The overall slide or?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Overview or maybe the one you just passed. Is it, the reduction in the setback, is
it the east property line?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, as you can see on this one, you can see the house just off the colored on the.
Mayor Furlong: On the top side of the picture.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Yes. That would be the current, the 50 foot setback. Again, to get this
street in without accessing that private street and to provide guest parking it’s a little bit different
arrangement so this isn’t also, this isn’t accessing off that main street coming in which those units are so
you have that private drive coming in.
Mayor Furlong: The street coming in off of Lyman, that’s a public road? Or is that private?
Kate Aanenson: That’s private.
Mayor Furlong: That’s private…okay. Alright. And so are all of them, what are the current twin home
setback and what is being proposed here?
Kate Aanenson: They’re all 30 feet. The other product part of the units are 50 feet. The original PUD
had 50 feet, and the condominium was also set at that because of the height. But we’re saying now that
the height’s not there and we created the flexibility within the PUD to say let’s look at each individual
project instead of saying what’s across the street because there’s, the closest home on that side is over 350
feet away and on the other side you’ve got the street and then the lakeshore, there isn’t the impact on that.
Mayor Furlong: And so when you say the closest home is 350, that’s to the east?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the, so we’re looking at 30 feet off of the east property line here or 20?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Where’d I see the 20?
Kate Aanenson: The 20 was the street variance.
10
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: That’s maybe what you’re thinking of so that was the variance going from the 24 to 20.
Mayor Furlong: So that’s totally internal to the development?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. And again there needs to be guest parking for so this is also
accommodating that for the pool house. There’s guest parking put in place for the pool house and that’s
part of the HOA so there’s some other underlying factors to, you know how this would lay out that you
had to accommodate. So again to get a unique design they have introduced three different products which
we like with the different size range. The orientation of all those. Providing for the access to the parking
for the pool facility and working with, trying to match those existing grades when it was predisposed.
Originally thought of being the condominium units so.
Mayor Furlong: And so this is the A and the B?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: That was in the original and both of those had condominiums.
Kate Aanenson: Were proposed for condominiums, correct.
Mayor Furlong: And how many total units were in those?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, in A was 39 units and then in B was 53.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so 92 if I’m doing my math correct.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, 92. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And now this will be 22?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And again the Planning Commission felt like they liked this type of unit.
How it matched and blend in so they were supportive in that respect and the flexibility granted through
those changes since they’d already amended the PUD to grant that flexibility. They thought this was a
good application of it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, very good. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? There
was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. I don’t know if there are people here that are interested
in making, providing public comment but I’d certainly entertain that at this time if anybody would like to
comment. Certainly. Can we straighten out the podium little there? We moved that for the pictures.
Thank you. Good evening.
Tim Whitten: Good evening. I’m Tim Whitten. I’m with Whitten Associates. I’m representing Ron
Clark Construction and Mike Roebuck, Vice President of Ron Clark Construction is with me as well and
we’re really just here to answer any questions. We’re very appreciative of the work that Kate and her
staff have done to help us through this project. We agree to all the conditions that have been placed
before us and I just want to say that we did have meetings with the existing homeowners in Lakeside and
also the existing builders in Lakeside, Wooddale and Charles Cudd. That went extremely well. We’ve
worked very hard to work with everybody’s interest after we pulled this project together. A very
11
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
complicated project. I’ve been working on it for about 9 months and just to get all the pieces to work to
get us to where we are today was very challenging but I believe that we have a terrific project and with
that I would just like to answer any questions that you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Whitten? Any concerns about any of the conditions
in the staff report and the one that was added by the Planning Commission in terms of access?
Tim Whitten: No, that’d be fine and the last one was the access, limited access and we’re very
comfortable with that. Mike has figured out a way to work through that and we’re good to go.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you.
Tim Whitten: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly anyone else who would like to provide public comment this evening. Please
sir.
Scott Fredrickson: Good evening. I’m Scott Fredrickson. I live across the fairway in Bearpath. Kate can
we go back to.
Kate Aanenson: …the first, the bigger drawing?
Scott Fredrickson: Yeah. No, the one that shows the perspective to the east. It’s one of the last ones.
No, one more. Yeah, right there. You know the way the grade actually works, if you see where the
height of the cart path is there, and you follow that across you see that they’re basically representing that
that cart path height and the top of the berm intersects that building kind of in the middle of it so you’d
think from that elevation that half of the building would kind of be buried below the berm and half would
be above the berm but in actuality what kind of exists on the other side of that berm, kind of in the
Chanhassen side is there’s a retaining wall that comes halfway between the trees and the buildings and
takes the height up so that the, basically the grade is about halfway up the height of that building and so
when I talked to Ron Clark earlier today I said is it your intent to put the slab on grade at the height of the
existing top of the retaining wall and they said yes it is and so if that’s the case, the building’s actually
going to end up another 10 or 12 feet higher than what’s shown on that rendering. The other thing that’s a
little misleading from that elevation is it’s kind of got the building, the old condominium building staged
but to truly get the perspective you’d have to push the condo building back another 20 feet because this is
showing inside the current setback whereas the condo building and then the Ron Clark, or the Charles
Cudd rather are back 50 feet and so I guess I’m struggling a little bit with the elevations. If indeed the
final product that Ron Clark’s talking about constructing does indeed fall well below the Charles Cudd
ceiling height, I think you know we’re okay with it. I mean obviously it’s an upgrade compared to what
we were planning on building. But if what they end up building changes dramatically from what’s shown
on that elevation and if the condo, or the townhouse height goes up another 10 or 12 feet and it’s pushed
to the extreme inside of the lot line, then I think it’s a different deal than what they’re showing here and
what we’ve kind of been told and so I’m a little concerned about the inconsistencies. Maybe we could
have an explanation of that. And then the other thing is, just as a developer I’m kind of failing to see the
hardship here. I mean I know that site’s gone back to the bank. They’re buying it in foreclosure or
receivership from the bank. They’re trying to get as much coverage here, density as possible and I
understand that but I’m failing to see the hardship that would trigger the variance. I mean the Charles
Cudd townhouses seem to flow very nicely with the golf course back 50 feet. I’m not sure why we have
to push these up and so they’re 30 feet away.
12
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification on the amendment versus. The one is a PUD
amendment. It’s not a variance. It’s a different test for that. But the other one, the variance is just for the
20 foot of road right-of-way.
Scott Fredrickson: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: The other one’s an amendment which is different.
Scott Fredrickson: It’s not a variance.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, the variance relates to the width of the street within the development.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: The private street.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: The setbacks are not a variance issue.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: That’s a PUD.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the other one’s kind of the amendment to the standards for the rezoning for the
PUD that would allow the setback to be consistent with what we would allow today.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Scott Fredrickson: And then the last thing I’d point out is that in another conversation today with Ron
Clark those buildings actually get higher as you get further to the south, and although they’re shown
consistently in a level across there, they actually step up and increase in height as you get a little further
south so there’s a few things on this drawing that’s not quite accurate so.
Mayor Furlong: Well maybe we could.
Scott Fredrickson: Yeah, that’d be great.
Mayor Furlong: Would you like to respond to?
Mike Roebuck: Yeah, if I may. Yeah, we’re responsible for the graphic that’s shown there and you have
to kind of keep in mind that this is a very small scale. A pencil width is 2 or 4 feet up or down so we did
check it again and we’re relatively close to the grading plans that were provided to us. There might be
some subtle differences here and there. One thing I want to point out I think that was mentioned by the
gentleman was that we’re basically in the same position as the condo building. They had decks that were
within 30 feet of the setback of the property line, as we are with our decks and porches so we’re very
much in line with where the condo building was approved originally and so that’s the reason why we kind
of have that line. Plus the site is extremely tight up in there and it was the best opportunity for us to be
able to do twin units as opposed to a row of townhomes so if you look at that elevation with the hip roofs
and the spacing as opposed to a condominium which would be a solid wall going all the way across there,
13
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
there’s a lot more air. A lot more visual through that. A lot more transparent than the condo buildings
would have been. Also as Kate referenced, it allows us to do some side entries along with some front
entries and create some variety within that so it’s really, you know we could have adhered to some of the
setbacks a little bit more closely or you know the, not variances but setbacks had we tried to push
everything a little tighter. What we’re really looking for the best product that we could place on the site
and that’s how this all kind of came to be. If there are some variables to the grading plan, you know we
could check it again but we just took the Bearpath trail. I think where we might have, where the trail
actually kind of is at the peak and where it starts tapering down, we might be a little bit off there but one
thing I want you to keep in mind, and I have a photograph if anybody wants to see it in my file. When we
show those existing trees there, I mean that is solid all the way through there so it’s virtually invisible,
even in today’s, without being leafed out. I have a photograph of trying to look through those trees and
see existing Cudd building and they’re virtually invisible. And we are lower than the Cudd buildings.
Not only in profile with the buildings themselves but also for the grade. We step back up as we get a little
bit closer to Lyman but we’re pretty confident this is close to exactly what would be seen from the
Bearpath side. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything you wanted to add?
Kate Aanenson: No, I was just going to say this is, for the subdivision part it is a preliminary plat. Final
plat’s generally go on consent so if there is any minor tweaking we can certainly communicate that back
when we’ve got the final grade and communicate that to the neighbors too but.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else that would like to provide public comment this evening
on this? No? Okay, thank you. Appreciate the input and questions. Council. Comments. Thoughts.
Councilman Litsey: Well just a quick one Kate. This isn’t going to, in no way are any of these ever
going to exceed what had been proposed before in terms of the height right? I mean these are all going to
be well below what the condominiums would have been or?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Litsey: So really it, no matter how you look at the height it’s going to be an improvement
over what could have gone there.
Kate Aanenson: Right, well I think there’s a couple things. Rightly so the other one was set back a little
bit different. I think that might be a little bit, little bit unclear in that picture but I think when we went
through the different iterations that we could have done, it could have been a row attached townhouse
project against there so, again when we worked on like what’s out there. Talking a lot of different
developers that were actually vying for this property, kind of what the goals would be and to kind of
create some of those, like I say we’re going to have a solid wall there.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, you get that solid wall there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and then the heights and those sort of things too so clearly we want to create some
open space between the two so there’s breaks and then this profile will be lower than the Cudd product
that’s out there. It certainly would be lower than the condominium project.
Councilman Litsey: And as this gets to final we, you’ll take into account the comments that have been
made to try to.
14
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
Kate Aanenson: Right and we’ll make sure when it comes for final plat that we illustratively show that to
you maybe in another iteration just to make sure that that’s clear. That everybody understands and for the
neighbors too. What that is. If we need to clarify that drawing, that we can do that too as part of the final
plat.
Councilman Litsey: That’s all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Or questions for staff. Anybody
comment on the proposal in front of us? Hearing none, would somebody like to make a motion?
Councilman Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: I’ve got the motion to be consistent with this one. Okay. Make a motion that the
City Council approves the ordinance amending the PUD design standards for Lakeside. That the City
Council approves the preliminary plat for Lakeside Fourth Addition creating 22 lots and 3 outlots with a
variance to permit a 20 foot wide private street to access Block 3, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering
dated 10-15-09, revised 2-25-10 subject to conditions 1 through 8. And that City Council approves the
site plan number 10-06 for a 22 unit twin home project in the Lakeside development, plans prepared by
Pioneer Engineering dated 10-15-09, revised 2-15-10 subject to conditions 1 through 3 and adopt the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation that were included in our packet.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? One, I just again want to thank
staff and everybody involved. The residents, the applicant as well for all their hard work here and
Planning Commission too. I mean this is a, the change here is a lower intensification. Lower density
than what’s allowed, what was originally allowed from a zoning standpoint and it’s really giving an
opportunity I think for the property owners to reasonably approve their property. The original plans were
put in place in different economic times and I think this is a representation perhaps of some of those
changes so I want to thank everybody for being involved and their participation in seeing this happen. If
there are no other comments a motion’s been made and seconded. We’ll proceed with the vote without
objection.
Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the
ordinance amending the PUD Design Standards for Lakeside. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the
preliminary plat for Lakeside Fourth Addition creating 22 lots and 3 outlots with a variance to
permit a 20 foot wide private street to access Block 3, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated
10-15-09, revised 2-25-10, subject to the following conditions:
1. Access easement and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street.
2. Payment of Park Dedication Fees totaling $110,000 ($5,000/Unit) in lieu of parkland dedication shall
be collected for the 22 residential twin homes being requested for Outlots B & E at the time of final
plat recording.
15
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
3. The applicant shall provide 6 overstory trees along Lyman Blvd; 4 overstory, 8 understory and 8
shrubs along the south property line of Outlot C; at least 3 overstory, 7 understory and 7 shrubs along
the east property line of Outlot B or landscaping consistent with the existing buffer to the north.
4. A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements must be submitted to the city before final
approval.
5. Landscaping security shall be provided for all development landscaping.
6. Fire Marshal conditions:
a.The new private drive to the east of Lake Riley Drive must have a street name. Submit
proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and
approval.
b.An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of Lake Riley Drive and the
new private road to the east.
c.Water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to
combustible construction (2007 MSFC Sec. 501.4).
d.Fire Department access roads shall be installed prior to combustible construction to
support the loads of fire apparatus (2007 MSFC Sec. 503.1.1).
e.A three-foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants (2007 MSFC Sec.
508.5.4).
f.Temporary street signs shall be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs shall be of
an approved size, weather resistant, and maintained until replaced by permanent sign
(2007 MSFC Sec. 505.2).
g.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be installed. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
spec sheets regarding sign design and specific locations of signs (MSFC Sec. 503.3).
7. City Engineer Conditions:
a. The emergency overflow elevation between Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 3 is labeled
improperly and must be corrected.
b. The lowest floor elevation of Lots 3 through 6, Block 2 must be minimum one foot above the
corrected emergency overflow elevation.
c. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. If
importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
d. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed
by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
e. All utilities within this site shall be privately owned and maintained; however, they must be
constructed to the City’s minimum requirements, including pipe diameter and slope, installation
of manholes at bends and the ends of sanitary sewer runs, and installation of a hydrant at the dead
end of watermain.
f. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
g. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2010 trunk hookup
charge is $2,026 for sanitary sewer and $5,393 for watermain. A portion of the trunk hookup fees
16
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
will be collected with the final plat; the remainder must be paid with the building permit, which may
be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
h. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
i. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of
Health, Carver County and Watershed District.
j. All streets within the development will be privately owned and maintained.
k. The developer must submit written verification that the private streets meet a 7-ton design.
l. At the time of final plat recording, the developer must pay the Arterial Collector fee, which is
calculated as follows: 3.58 developable acres x $2,400/acre = $8,592.
m. Construction access shall be limited to Lake Riley Drive at Lyman Boulevard.
8. Water Resources Conditions:
a. Provide detail for Inlet Protection on the beehive structures.
b. Show sealed concrete washout area.
c. Provide an updated SWPPP.
d. Eliminate detail plate 5300.
e. The SWMP fee for Lakeside Fourth Addition is $35,129.61 which shall be paid at the time of
final plat recording.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Site
Plan #10-06 for a 22-unit twin-home project in the Lakeside development, plans prepared by
Pioneer Engineering dated 10-15-09, revised 2-25-10, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to
guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The final plat for Lakeside Fourth Addition must be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the twin homes.
3. Building Official conditions:
a. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic
sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate
buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area threshold.
b. Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by the
Building Official.
c. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits
can be issued.
d. Walls and projections within five feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
e. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
f. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
g. The applicant and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.”
17
Chanhassen City Council - April 12, 2010
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: (K). APPROVE REQUEST FOR $16,550 PAYMENT FOR FIXTURES,
CHANHASSEN DINNER THEATERS.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst, you had asked for separate discussion on this.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yes. So it appears as though we have to pay, make a payment of $16,550 for some
fixtures for the Chanhassen Dinner Theater project. And I am wondering Todd if you could speak more
to number one, the State law and the requirement there and what really is considered a fixture. I’m kind
of curious about that. I see that we have hardwood floors included in here, but as I read this it appeared
as though the State law required more to what is a fixed asset. So if you could just clarify that and speak
to that.
Todd Gerhardt: Sure. The scene shop for the Chanhassen Dinner Theater is located between Chanhassen
Dinner Theater and the railroad tracks, directly behind the theater and it’s a Quonset building and it sits in
a low area and inside the facility they needed to build up the floor on that Quonset building. The reason
for that is, when they’re building sets for the Chanhassen Dinner Theater they need to stand the sets up
and the only way they can stand those sets up is occasionally drilling in 2 by 4’s to hold the set up and the
only way you could do that, because it has a concrete floor, you have to raise that floor and they incurred
dollars in putting in that floor. Under the State law, minus depreciation, they were able to get reimbursed
for that cost. Also because space was limited they did build a mezzanine area for offices and storage so
our relocation expert had reviewed both of those items and had deemed them to be qualified
reimbursement expenses under the Minnesota Relocation Act. So minus depreciation he is
recommending payment for the amount of $16,550.
Councilwoman Ernst: And this is required by law, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: Is that we have to do this. So what I’m struggling with here, when I first read this
it says payment for fixtures but what you just described to me sounds more like a building structure.
Todd Gerhardt: They’re special improvements as a part of their operation and whenever you come in and
make a special improvement to a building, and that you are forced out, you should get reimbursed for
those special improvements that you’ve made to that facility as a part of your operation.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right, and that makes sense to me but again, can we, can we re-label this to call it
something other than fixtures to be more, because when I think of flooring and a mezzanine, that doesn’t
sound like fixtures to me.
Todd Gerhardt: Sure. You know it’s, I don’t know what to call it. It’s part of making that facility
adaptable for their operation.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions on this? Is there a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation
on item 1(k)?
18