Loading...
CC Minutes 12-13-2010Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 distributed. If that’s the direction the council wants to go. Any other questions for staff? If there are no questions for staff from the council at this time then I will open the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Anyone that would like to address the council on this matter of the utility easement vacation? seeing none then, without objection we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Is there any discussion on this? Just for clarification, this was a easement that was put in place when the lot line was in a different location, is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Very good. Would somebody, if there’s no discussion, would somebody like to make a motion to the resolution? Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: Sure, I’ll make a motion. And you’d like me to read it, right? Mayor Furlong: Well at least, it’s pretty short so. Councilman Litsey: A resolution vacating drainage and utility easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block nd 1, the Hesse Farm 2 Addition, Vacation File number 10-01. Whereas, the City of Chanhassen is requesting to vacate the drainage and utility easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the Hesse nd Farm 2 Addition; and Whereas, the existing easements were granted in 1979. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Chanhassen City Council hereby approves vacating the drainage and utility nd easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, the Hesse Farm 2 Addition as defined on the attached vacation description. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this resolution? Resolution #2010-100: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve the resolution vacating drainage and utility nd easements on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, the Hesse Farm 2 Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. LAKEVIEW: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND MIXED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW- MEDIUM (RLM); AND SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES INTO 66 LOTS AND 4 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTCION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 212. APPLICANT: US HOME CORPORATION (DBA LENNAR). Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This request actually has a couple items with it. Essentially approval of the subdivision and then a rezoning and with the 5 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 motion we’re also requesting that besides approving the Findings of Fact that you also approve the attached ordinance that goes with this property so the word ordinance was left off on the motion. The subject site for Lakeview Hills is located off of 101 and Lyman Boulevard, at the former property, the John Klingelhutz property. Abutting the new 212 and the North Bay subdivision. One of the residents at the Planning Commission did correct, it says the road is in error stated on the City’s records but the plat actually says Lake Riley Road East, which is adjacent to this property so that was noted. It is, will need to be corrected through the County system but I just want to state for the record that that was noted as a correction that needed to be made. So this property before you tonight did have a public hearing at the Planning Commission th back on December 7. The Planning Commission did recommend 6 for, none against and recommending approval of the subdivision. There was a number of residents in attendance on the North Bay area and I will summarize some of their concerns as we go through the process itself but I think the Planning Commission also had some concerns regarding noise management on this site in itself and again I’ll talk about that as we move through the project. So looking at the first issue, citing the land use. What’s around it. Again as I mentioned immediately to the east is the North Bay subdivision. This property was actually, as high density. This is the first application where the City looked at doing 0 lots. Those lots are about 3,000 so they’re less than the 12 units an acre which was allowed, and then immediately to the east of that was the old property which is now the Lakeside development, and we had condos approved on those and most recently amended that site plan to allow for some other twins and three plexes on that property. So then to the south of this site in the Springfield neighborhood, that was a PUD so within that PUD how they were applied back then, the lots could be as small as 11 but the average 15. So those are some of the factors that we looked at in coming to kind of what we felt was a good transition for this area. There is some large lot. While it’s guided low density currently not on sewer and water. Some large lot, agricultural type zoning immediately to the west of the site. So the zoning itself, again it is zoned residential single family. They are asking for a different zoning application. Again the staff looking at kind of what’s surrounding the area, as I stated, and then some of the design parameters led us to go, recommend the RLM and I’ll go through some of those design factors. Again it’s up against Highway 212. MnDOT put in a large drainage easement with the consent of the underlying property owner. There’s also a MnDOT, some other City drainage easements. A waterline running through. It’s in the shoreland district of Lake Riley so within 1,000 feet of the lake those lots have to be a minimum lot size so those are some of the factors that we looked at, so blending between kind of the larger lot, which ultimately go, would be subdivided when sewer and water becomes available, and then looking at what we have the North Bay and the Springfield subdivision led us to the conclusion for the RLM zoning. In your packet we put in the compliance table for the RLM zoning to show how that worked. In the shaded area, the highlighted area you can see those lots that have to meet the minimum 15,000 square foot area. In addition to that they have to have the 90 feet of frontage, which is different than the RLM which allows you to go as small as 50. These all have 65. What we asked the developer to do is bring in a variety of housing types so there’s numerous housing, house designs that could fit on the different lots. Again try to provide that variety which you have in the subdivision to the south. So this is a subdivision. When we saw it originally it was Lake Riley. I think what they’re using now for the marketing is Reflections at Lake Riley but this is the plat as it lays out. So this plat embraces the parameters that were set in place. The drainage easement coming off the ponding from 212. That would bring you down to this storm water pond. Looking at the wetland, there’s one large wetland on 6 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 the site and I’ll talk about that a little bit more. Tying into making a T intersection at this Springfield subdivision for an access control. Again this is a minor collector road, and then providing access, which is already required from the Lake Riley Road East access point, and then providing additional access to the property to the west again which will be subdivided in the future. This is the more horse farms and little bit more rural lot subdivisions over here. Again not on city services. So looking at that, some of the other things that went into consideration was the potential for a city park. I also want to emphasize when we looked at some of the design, working with the developer, they came in with a couple different iterations but looking at trying to provide the least number of houses up against the 212 and then also trying to provide the greatest buffer that was decided to put the cul-de-sacs going in the north/south direction. Again trying a better buffer. Less homes against the street itself. Councilman Litsey: Kate, there’s already a wall there, sound barrier right? Kate Aanenson: Yes there is. Councilman Litsey: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think that’s kind of a big jumping off point to maybe talk a little bit about the. Councilman Litsey: Sorry, I didn’t mean to. Kate Aanenson: No, it’s a good question and probably a good place to talk about it because the Planning Commission did spend a lot of time on this. There is a noise wall immediately to the east of this because the North Bay project was in place when MnDOT came along and built 212. MnDOT was willing to put a noise wall on this property but the underlying property owner at that time chose to take compensation for that and not build the noise wall. So under this, the developer’s working not with the underlying property owner but also with the financial institutions so for this developer to put a noise wall as opposed to providing some noise attenuation, landscaping, fencing, berming, those sort of things, it’s a different standard. The noise wall itself would probably be closer to between $600,000 or $750,000 so this developer doesn’t, this project wouldn’t happen if that was the requirement so the Planning Commission had concerns with that, as did staff and we’re working to try to resolve it and we think we can, through berming, landscaping, it’s not going to be the same as a noise wall, provide that noise reduction. And also letting the buyers beware of that circumstance as they move into the property. I think some of the neighbors to the east were also concerned that the noises would go that way but I think with the addition of the homes and the landscaping it should help again provide some of that buffer. It wouldn’t be the same as with the noise wall but I just want to put that out there on the record that, where that stands because that was an issue for the Planning Commission but it is a condition of approval and we are working with the developer to kind of look at more details of how well that will actually provide some buffer. Good question. The wetland itself, there is one wetland on the site. There is no proposed impact to the site. As a matter of fact we’re providing additional ponding in this area and this area before going into that wetland. The neighbors again to the east and the north they wanted to make sure that wasn’t disturbed. They liked the vegetation and the wildlife that was attracted to that area. There’s just 7 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 a couple minor modifications that need to be made to the plat. Those are conditions of approval and that’s in this area just to get the right, the correct width of those lots at the building setback line based on the fact that they are adjacent to the wetland. There will be a wetland setback and a wetland buffer and it does meet all those requirements and the line modification wouldn’t affect the number of lots. It’s just something that they can resolve when they come back for final plat. Neighborhood park. Again the Comprehensive Plan states that within a half mile there should be a neighborhood park so within this project it was proposed to do a park, and that park is located here on the site. Again Park and Rec Commission has looked at that and that’s what they are recommending, but the actual design of the park itself will come forward at a later date as kind of the plans develop but it will be typical of a neighborhood park with a play area and some open space. And the park itself would be 4.83 acres of land. Again it gives good access to the people to the south in the Springfield neighborhood. Creates a nice visible opening and kind of capitalizes on the adjacency to the wetland itself and the lake. So with that, the subdivision does meet all the requirements of the City Code. We are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I’d just again would recommend regarding the, adding the ordinance for the motion but with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Changes in the conditions from when it went to the Planning Commission. There’s the one added there, number 39 I believe. With regard to looking for ways to lessen the noise which was raised at the Planning Commission. There’s also some information with regard to the park site. Can you tell me what the basis was for determining the cost of the acquired portion Mr. Hoffman? Todd Hoffman: Mayor and City Council. The per acre price has been added. It’s a net cost so it’s the cost that the applicant paid for the site less the undevelopable property so we’re paying the exact price that they paid for the net per acre charge for the 1.7 acres that we’re acquiring. Mayor Furlong: Okay, between the developer and the property owner. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So really negotiated price. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And the source of funding? Todd Hoffman: That would be the park dedication fund. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So not out of the general fund but the park dedication. Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Other questions for staff? Public hearing was held at the Planning Commission. We have received copies of the Planning Commission notes but I don’t know if there’s anybody here that would like to address the council on this matter or have 8 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 additional comments or questions that weren’t addressed at the Planning Commission. I would open it up for public comments at this time. Okay. Let’s bring it to council then for discussions and comments followed by a motion, if that’s in order. Thoughts and comments, Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I guess my first thought is, boy isn’t this good news. It’s been a while since we’ve seen one of these and it’s good to see it again and it’s good to see that there’s still some people willing to take a chance and go out there and build houses and so I just, I think it’s a great subdivision to have coming through town and it looks great to see it in our packet and I hope that we see more of these in the future. And thank you to the Planning Commission also for all they do wrinkling out any, or ironing out any wrinkles that they might be encountering with the subdivision planning so thanks to that and we look forward to Reflections at Lake Riley. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? And just to share some other comments. One from a site plan design. I think it’s one of the things that we see here is a little bit different density here than what we see to the east at North Bay which is higher density and to the south in the Springfield neighborhood which is even lower density than this development, so again following our Comprehensive Plan and looking to provide different housing types, both from the standpoint of, well different types but also different price points and that’s what we’re always trying to do. The other thing I noticed here is the connection of the roads between the neighborhood to the east, the North Bay neighborhood. That road segment there was obviously planned for and development of this property was planned for back at the time the North Bay was put in place and so I think that a compliment to staff and Planning Commission for seeking those opportunities. I see the same road and the road to be extended on the west part of this parcel again to connect neighborhoods is something that this council has supported in our Comprehensive Plan over the years so appreciate you continuing to do that. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, would somebody like to make some motions? Councilman McDonald: I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen City Council approves the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Planning Commission’s Findings of Fact. And then what is the other one that you wanted to read into it? Was there another one? Roger Knutson: Rezoning ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Rezoning ordinance. Is that also include the approval of the preliminary plat? Is that part of it? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman McDonald: That the Chanhassen City Council approves the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the staff report. Where’s the language for the rezoning? Kate Aanenson: That was omitted from there. There is a rezoning ordinance attached there so that was the one thing that we needed to add and the rezoning ordinance. 9 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 Councilman McDonald: Okay. And rezoning ordinance which I read into it so it should all be there. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion for the motion? Again good to see a development coming through and more growth taking place in our city. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Planning Case #10-12 to rezone 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District, and R-4 Mixed Low-Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for Lakeview Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received November 5, 2010, and adoption of the findings of fact and ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planning Case #10-12 for Lakeview Subdivision for 66 lots and 4 outlots as shown on the plans received November 5, 2010, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact: 1.The applicant shall add 34 trees to its total for tree planting. The landscape plan shall show at total of 282 trees to be planted. 2.All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading. 3.All work and drainage discharge within the MnDOT easement must be approved by MnDOT. 4.The public drainage and utility easement on the north side of the development must be vacated. 5.The existing building and driveway on the north side of the site must be removed. 6.Based on the proposed grading a low area will be created west and north of the Street C stub. The developer must work with the adjacent property owner to either grade out the low area, or install storm sewer to prevent water from ponding in the area. 7.The developer's engineer will shift the storm sewer at the back of Lots 38 to 41, Block 3, further north in order to provide a larger unencumbered backyard area. 10 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 8.The storm sewer alignment at the back of Lots 19 and 20, Block 3 must be adjusted to minimize the required drainage and utility easement. 9.The lowest opening of a building must be minimum 18 inches above an adjacent emergency overflow. 10.Additional information must be shown on the final grading plan to show how drainage from the Highway 212 berm will be directed into the existing flared end section located north of proposed Lot 27, Block 3. 11.An encroachment agreement is required if the developer wishes to install an entrance monument at the Street B intersection of Lyman Boulevard. 12.A temporary turnaround is required at the western end of Street C. 13.The development is adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial collector fee at the time of final plat. 14.The developer will not be reimbursed for the relocation cost of the 12-inch watermain since the work is development driven. 15.The watermain within Street B between Lyman Boulevard and Street A shall be 8-inch. 16.The delineated wetland boundary must be moved so that no portion of the boundary is located at an elevation less than the 868-foot contour. 17.The delineated wetland boundary will not be considered approved until the public comment period has ended on December 13, 2010. 18.The wetland buffer behind Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Block 4 shall be minimized to be coincidental with the rear lot lines. The area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. 19.The applicant, with the assistance of the City, must show that adequate capacity exists within the North Bay storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed drainage area to be directed to North Bay. 20.The NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity must be applied for and obtained prior to any earth-disturbing activities. Proof of this must be provided to the City. 21.Reasonable efforts must be made to provide a maintenance access road to ponds 100 and 200 in compliance with City Code and the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity. 11 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 22.Additional data must be provided for cul-de-sac D to demonstrate sufficient grade for adequate drainage. 23.A minimum of two feet of separation must be provided between the emergency overflow for the MnDOT drainage swale and the low floor opening for Lot 5, Block 2. 24.Two-foot sumps shall be included with structures CBMH-104, MH-203 and MH-222. 25.All storm sewer shall be within a drainage and utility easement. 26.Hydraulic calculations shall be provided to the City for review and approval before the final plat can be issued. 27.Mulch, MnDOT Type 3, certified weed free shall be used in all of Block 4, Outlot A and Outlot B whenever mulch is called for. 28.The remainder of the gully which originates under Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 shall be filled in. This shall be done in such a manner as to avoid additional tree loss and the introduction of weeds and invasive species. 29.The estimated SWMP fees, in the amount of $82,228.55, are due at the time of final plat. 30.Phosphorus removal will need to meet the minimum 60% removal rate and should maximize that to the greatest extent practicable. 31.The applicant shall be responsible to assure that all other agency permissions are applied for and resulting conditions are met. 32.A Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form will need to be filled out and submitted to the LGU (City of Chanhassen) and the DNR. The form can be found at: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/forms/Contractor_Responsibility.doc 33.Appendix A C.1 and C.2 must be addressed including: a.Exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible but never later than seven (7) days. b.A discussion of the feasibility of infiltration and the appropriate response to these findings. 34.Building Official Conditions: a.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. 12 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 b.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. c.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and require permits, inspections and final approval. d.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. e.The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 35.Fire Marshal conditions: a.Submit street names to Building and Fire Marshal for review and approval. b.No burning permits will be issued. Tress, scrubs etc. must be removed from the site or chipped. c. Mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. d. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. e.Temporary street signs shall be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs shall be of an approved size as required by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. They shall be weather- resistant and maintained until replaced by permanent signs. f.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. g.The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 must be relocated to the intersection of Streets B and C. h.The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 must be relocated to intersection of Street B and Lyman Boulevard. 36.The lot width at the rear setback line for lots 1 and 2, Block 4, must be adjusted to reflect 90 feet as required in the Shoreland Ordinance. 37.Successful transfer of Outlot B (4.83+ acres) to the City of Chanhassen concurrent with the final plat through a combination of dedication (3.08+ acres) and fee purchase (1.75+ acres) at a cost of $112,716 per acre, for development and use as a public neighborhood park. 38.A sign reading “This Road Will Be Extended in the Future” shall be placed at the west end of Street C. 13 Chanhassen City Council - December 13, 2010 39.The applicant shall work with staff to evaluate the use of a privacy fence and vegetation along the north edge of the property to lessen the noise impact from Highway 212. A ” solution will be presented with the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2011 BUDGET: APPROVE RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL LEVY AND 2011- 2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Greg Sticha: Thank you Mayor and City Council. Before I get into a power point for this evening’s presentation on the budget and tax levy I just want to put into perspective a few items that we discussed at our work session after last week’s Truth in Taxation hearing. The numbers you see listed on the screen are budget adjustments that staff reviewed with City Council at our work session last week after the taxation hearing. The numbers that you see on that spread sheet on the screen right now will be part of the power point presentation this evening so the final numbers in the power point have each of these numbers reflected in the power point, so I just wanted to give those perspective who were in attendance last week or watched last week, what the difference is between the power point from last week and this week’s power point is essentially the numbers you see on the screen right here. For those of you that were in attendance last week or watched last week, you’ll have to forgive me. I’m going to go over some information that we did go over last week just to give those that have not seen the information the same opportunity to view the same information that those saw last week so some of this might be repetitive for some people who were in attendance last week. Quickly I’m going to go over the budget process that staff and council have been through essentially for over the last 6 months. Preliminary budgets were submitted by the department directors in early July. The budgets were then reviewed by the Finance Director and the City Manager in late July. Staff met with City Council to discuss detailed budgets in August. This was moved up from previous years in which we had discussed them in October. City Council wanted to be able to see the detailed budgets before they set the preliminary levy so we accommodated the City Council and th were able to do that this year. We then set a preliminary tax levy on September 13. That number was then used for the Truth in Taxation statements that the residents received here in the th middle of November. A public budget meeting was held last week on Monday, December 6 and this evening we need to adopt a final budget and tax levy to be certified with Hennepin and Carver Counties. First let’s go through the general fund expenditures and how they compare from 2010 to 2011. Again the changes that I showed on the spread sheet previously will be the difference between this week and last week. General government expenditures saw a .5% decrease from the previous year. As you look across the line items, most of them remained relatively flat. A couple of items to note. The law enforcement/fire category saw a 4% increase. The largest amount of that increase is due to the increase in the required contribution for the volunteer fire fighters retirement. That increase alone was $70,000 from the previous year. As we discussed with council in previous meetings, that number is based on a projection based on in part what we had from this year’s actuary. We are anticipating a similar required contribution for next year so staff felt it was prudent to increase that line item by $70,000. That accounts for the majority of the 4% increase in that budget category. Rest of the categories for the most part remain relatively flat. The total increase in expenditures from the previous years is .6%. At the presentation in last week’s meeting where I believe it was .84% so that number changed by .2% 14