The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Packet 2005 09 12AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 5:00 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. A. 5:00 p.m. - Joint Meeting with the Park & Recreation Commission. B. 5:30 p.m. - Joint Meeting with the Environmental Commission. C. 6:00 p.m. - Update on 2005 Industrial Replacement. D. Item Deleted ** 7:00 p.m. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1. a. Approval of Minutes: · City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 22, 2005 · City Council Summary Minutes dated August 22, 2005 · City Council Verbatim Minutes dated August 22, 2005 · City Council Emergency Meeting Minutes dated September 6, 2005 · Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated August 2, 2005 · Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated August 2, 2005 · Planning Commission Work Session Minutes dated August 16, 2005 · Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated August 23, 2005 · Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated August 23, 2005 b. Approval of Purchase Agreement for West Water Treatment Plant Property (Lake Harrison Development) and Accept Land Donation. c. Resolution Approving the Use of the Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit Route as a Snowmobile Trail. d. Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I - Project 04-05. e. Approve Consultant Contract for 2006 Street Improvement Project. f. Item Deleted ** g. Resolution Decertifying Gateway Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District #6. h. Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement with T-Mobile. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 2. TROY AND VIRGINIA KAKACEK, 380 West 86th Street, Planning Case 05-18: Hard Cover Variance Request for a Single-Family Home. 3. MARIANNE McCORD & DAVID SANFORD, 6440 Fox Path, Planning Case 05-22: Wetland Alteration Permit to Construct a Walkway and Dock. 4. PROPOSED 2006 BUDGET: Approval/Certification of Maximum Proposed Levy to the Carver County Auditor. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE SECTION DISCUSSION 5. Correspondence Section ADJOURNMENT A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. 1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. 4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. 5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 22, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:35 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, and Todd Hoffman PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2006 BUDGET AND LEVY. Todd Gerhardt introduced the item and commended department heads for doing an admirable job with budget projections. Greg Sticha reviewed his memo, highlighting expenditures, revenues and levy projections. Todd Gerhardt talked about developments that are projected to create building permit revenues in 2006. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on existing market value increases. Councilman Lundquist asked staff to clarify how the numbers work with the tax rate versus actual dollar amounts. Todd Gerhardt explained how staff is proposing to use the projected excess $2 million dollars to keep the levy constant over the next 4 years. Greg Sticha explained that the 2006 budget does assume a 5 ½% increase in wages. Todd Gerhardt noted that there were no service level cuts. He stated staff was looking for direction from City Council to determine which scenario to use for the Truth in Taxation levy. Staff is recommending Scenario #2. Mayor Furlong asked if there was anything new that the city may need to bond for in the next 5 years. Todd Gerhardt stated that in 2009 the city will be out of cash so the council needs to start planning now for how the city will fund future road projects. Mayor Furlong directed staff to explore the 1.5% scenario with 0% increase in the amount of taxes property owners will pay. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: DISCUSSION OF ZONING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING INDUSTRIAL. Kate Aanenson presented background information on the 1998 comprehensive plan and how those numbers were determined. She outlined assumptions that were used in determining the numbers for 2005 through 2020. Mayor Furlong asked what land is available in the 2010 comprehensive plan to meet the projected numbers. Kate Aanenson gave a power point presentation showing Chanhassen’s land use in comparison to other key financial cities. Mayor Furlong asked staff to explain how they figure density transfer numbers, net versus gross and if it’s the same as how other cities calculate their numbers. Kate Aanenson explained the numbers in the 2005 MUSA area, what happens if you take industrial out, and where in the city you can pick it up. Mayor Furlong asked about land use and what future opportunities there are for medium density and office/industrial and how those numbers impact current projects such as Town and Country Homes and Peterson Bluff. Todd Gerhardt explained how the City Council can give direction to begin the process of re-guiding property and how the road configuration through the 2005 MUSA area would differ depending on different land uses. Councilman Labatt City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 2 asked for further clarification on the rezoning process. Councilman Lundquist stated nothing’s changed since 2 weeks ago and asked if there were timing issues involved. Kate Aanenson explained that the City Council needs to make a decision at their September 8th meeting on moving forward with the road project. The work session was recessed at 7:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m.. DISCUSSION OF TH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY, LYMAN BOULEVARD SOUTH TO SCOTT COUNTY LINE. Paul Oehme showed a map of the Highway 101 corridor and reviewed staff’s discussions with MnDot and Carver County on sharing cost to conduct a study. Todd Gerhardt explained that it’s a good opportunity for the city to work with the State and County. Kate Aanenson explained how the process will work in receiving citizen input. Councilman Lundquist asked how many years the data from the study is valid. Mayor Furlong asked what the city will get for the money spent. Todd Gerhardt stated the key to this request is getting the corridor officially mapped. DISCUSSION OF 2006 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 06-01. Paul Oehme gave a power point presentation on the 2005-2009 proposed street improvement projects, highlighting the 2006 streets, along with sewer and ponding projects. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the estimated number of lots and assessment projects. Mayor Furlong talked about the revolving assessment fund and how that can be sustained into the future. He noted he liked the 5 year projection plan. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Dan Keefe Planning Commission Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Andrew, Thomas & Matt Jones 480 Bighorn Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 8, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated August 8, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 26, 2005 b. Resolution#2005-67: Accept Street and Storm Sewer in Vasserman Ridge 3rd Addition, Project 04-04. d. Resolution#2005-68: Approve Materials Testing Quote for East Water Treatment Plan, Project 04-08. e. Approve Contract for Final Design Services to Kimley-Horn Associates for the 2005 MUSA Area, Project 04-05. f. Resolution#2005-69: Approve Quote for Engineering Consultant Work for Wells No. 10 & 11. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 2 g. Approve Purchase, Carver Beach Park and Minnewashta Heights Play Equipment Improvements. h. Resolution#2005-70: Approval of Resolution Authorizing Transfer and Closing of TIF Funds. i. Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson presented the Sheriff’s office area report, area citation list, Community Service Officer report for the month of July. Councilman Lundquist asked for an update on staffing of deputies. Todd Gerhardt noted that Chief Gregg Geske was not present to provide an update from the fire department. CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION; REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. Public Present: Name Address Peter & LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail JoEllen Radermacher 2479 Bridle Creek Trail Sarah & Steve Dale 2487 Bridle Creek Trail Ben Merriman Eden Trace Corporation Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Paul Oehme addressed the traffic study that was conducted by TDI. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked to see the berming on Outlot B. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the placement of the buildings and how the information in the traffic study was used by TDI. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the ordinance regulations regarding signage and lighting on the buildings. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification of the conservation easement. The applicant, Ben Merriman stated he did not have anything further to add. Mayor Furlong asked for additional citizen comments. LuAnn Sidney, 2431 Bridle Creek Trail thanked staff for addressing the concerns of the neighbors, emphasizing the following conditions. The addition of a statement about tree preservation fencing being placed at least 2 feet beyond the drip line to help preserve some of the mature oaks that are in that area in condition 2. Adding a condition 36(k) which asks to add the proposed contour lines for the berm between Outlot B and Lot 5. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 3 And adding the word permanent to conservation easement to ensure it’s permanent forever. Sarah Dale, 2487 Bridle Creek Trail stated their concern is that there is no berm required between Outlot B and Building 5 and she’d like to see something to give them some protection in the future for that building. JoEllen Radermacher, 2479 Bridle Creek Trail concurred with the other neighbors on their request for a berm between Outlot B and Lot 5, and additional consideration to the height and materials of the buildings. Chris Butcher, 2407 Bridle Creek Trail expressed their shock at the potential size of the proposed buildings and asked to increase the setback from 100 to 150 feet. Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road asked to see the samples of construction materials. After council discussion the following motions were made. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves the ordinance rezoning the property located within the Chanhassen West Business Park from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) incorporating the development design standards contained within the staff report, modified to delete items G(7) and H(5), and based upon the findings of fact attached to the report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to the report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in the south and east property line bufferyards to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. 2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities. Fencing shall remain in place until construction is completed. 3. All trees shown as preserved on plans dated 6/17/05 shall be protected. Any trees damaged or removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 4. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 4 6. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 7. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates and meet NURP standards. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 8. Stable emergency overflows shall be provided for the proposed pond on site. The emergency overflows shall be clearly labeled on the plan and a detail is needed. The emergency overflows may be stabilized with a turf re-enforcement mat or fabric and riprap. 9. Notes on the plan describing timing of temporary stabilization with Type 1 mulch and seed or erosion control blanket and seed shall be included. The notes shall include timing of stabilization as well as the rate of mulch application (2 tons per acre, disc anchored). 10. All riprap/fabric at the flared end section shall be installed within 24 hours of flared end section installation. 11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Erosion control blanket shall be specified in the swale from the flared end section to the wetland along the west boundary of the site. The blanket specified shall adequately protect the area from designed velocity and depth of flow. The blanket and seed in the swale shall be installed within 5 days of culvert installation. Erosion control blanket is recommended for the pond slopes from around 952 to 942 contours. All blanket on the plan shall be shown as a shaded area. 13. Temporary sediment basins shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope areas. The areas of temporary sediment basins shall be labeled on the plan. A temporary outlet (e.g., a perforated riser and rock cone) shall be provided for the pond; details should be provided. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 5 Temporary basins shall be constructed in the area of the proposed permanent storm water pond, the southeast corner of the site prior to discharging to the culvert under Galpin Boulevard, and possibly in the northwest area of the site to handle water runon from the north prior to discharge to the wetland. 14. Any and all area inlets or drop inlets in paved areas shall be protected with alternate controls/Wimco details. The engineer shall research and provide alternate designs for Wimco-type inlet controls to fit the various types of inlets. 15. Additional inlet controls shall be provided for adjacent inlets on Galpin Boulevard and Street A. 16. Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the wetland. 17. Type 1 and Type 2 silt fence locations shall be specified on the plan. Type 2 silt fence shall be installed around all wetland areas and in the southeast corner of the site to protect the culvert under Galpin Boulevard. The silt fence shall be extended along the south side to close the gap in the silt fence. 18. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 19. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $413,661. 20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 21. In lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction, full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat for the proposed Chanhassen West Business Park. At current rates, the park fee would total $359,500 (35.95 x $10,000 per acre). 22. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. 23. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 24. Provide a water service for Lot 6. 25. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 6 26. Fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 27. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 28. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 29. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire code Section 503.2.3. 30. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage be vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota fire code Section 501.4. 31. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including storm water ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, and buffer areas used as PVC. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 32. The interior lot storm sewer will require private easements to be dedicated where the sewer crosses from one lot to another. 33. Private utility easements are required for the sanitary sewer and water lines that serve Lot 4 but go through Lot 5. 34. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 35. On the site plan: a. Revise the cul-de-sac pavement radius to 48 feet. b. Revise the parking driveway aisle from 24 feet to 26 feet wide. c. Revise the public street width from 32 feet to 36 feet wide. d. Increase the full access width off Galpin Boulevard to 44 feet and create three lane access. e. Shift Lots 1 and 8 easterly access further toward the west and realign the across each other. f. Show at least one, 6-foot wide, side walk along the public street. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 7 g. Show the access off Galpin Boulevard turning curb radius. h. Realign lot 5 access perpendicular to the shared driveway. i. Show street lights. j. Show handicap parks and ramps. 36. On the grading plan: a. Extend silt fence type between the storm pond and Outlot A. Silt fence Type II must be used adjacent to wetlands and storm pond. b. Revise contour lines to match 3:1 maximum slope and tie the proposed contour lines with the existing contours for Lots 4, 5, south of Lot 2 and northeast of Lot 1. c. Show the proposed contour lines for Lot 6. d. Show all retaining walls top and bottom elevations. e. Show all emergency overflows (EOF). The EOF must be 1.5' lower than the adjacent lowest floor. f. Revise Lot 6 parking slope to 0.7% minimum. g. Add a note to remove any existing structure and access off Galpin Boulevard and all disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. h. Show 75-foot minimum construction rock entrance. i. No retaining walls structure is allowed within public street and/or public utility easements, revise accordingly. j. Show 20-foot utility easement for the storm sewer between Lots 2 and 3 k. Show contour lines for the berm on Outlot B. 37. On the utility plans: a. Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements. b. Show the proposed sanitary and storm sewer stubs inverts. c. Add storm sewer schedule. d. Public storm sewer pipe type must be RCP and 15-inch minimum diameter. e. The last street accessible storm manhole (STMH#2) must be built with a sump. f. Revise sanitary sewer pipe from DIP to PVC-C900. g. On the utility profile show all sewer and pipe crossings. h. Minimum vertical separation must be 18 inches between watermain and sewer. i. Call out watermain fittings 38. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered Civil Engineer in the state of Minnesota with an approved safety fence on top of it. Also, it will require a building permit from the Building Department. 39. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 2109, 2110 2204, 3104, 3109, 5201, 5205, 5214 and 5215. 40. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota must sign all plans. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 8 41. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. 42. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots for each of the entrance drives. 43. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 44. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. 45. 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 and traffic control plans. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 46. All private streets are required to have 24-foot wide paved streets from back-of-curb to back- of-curb, be built to a 7-ton design and contained within a 40-foot wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private streets were built to a 7-ton design. 47. Six-foot wide sidewalks are required. 48. All of the proposed building pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the HWL of the adjacent ponds. 49. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City’s Building Department. 50. Comply with Carver County memo dated June 28, 2005 and revise the plans accordingly. 51. Revise plan sheet size to 24 x 36 using scale 50. 52. The developer shall dedicate a permanent conservation easement over Outlot C.” 53. The applicant shall work with staff to resolve any drainage issues along Lots 5, 6 and Outlot C. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 9 54. The developer shall construct a berm within the 16 foot setback outside the wetland buffer zone on Lot 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A no loss determination shall be completed for Basin F 31-34. 2. Exemption requests shall be completed for Basins F 51-80 N, Basin F 91-97 and Wetland A. 3. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 4. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 5. Several corrections must be made to the Wetland Mitigation Plan (sheet 10 of 13): a. Wetland A is shown as an impact area. Upon finalization of exemption paperwork, mitigation will not be required for this wetland; b. Wetland C (Basin F 87-90) is 0.05 acres in area; and c. Wetland D (Basin F 81-86) is 0.09 acres in area. 6. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 7. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 10 8. Drainage and utility easements a minimum of 20 feet in width shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the wetland. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), 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. MINNEWASHTA CREEK HILL, 6560 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, ROBERT RICK (FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TIM & MARY COLLERAN), PLANNING CASE 05-15; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Councilman Lundquist asked staff to explain what affect installing a cul-de-sac would have on the property. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for an explanation of the city’s policy on historical structures. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the private driveway configuration. The applicant, Robert Rick thanked staff for their guidance and insight through the process. Todd Gerhardt suggested that staff put together options for a turn around on Lot 3 to bring back with the final plat. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hills for 3 lots and a variance to run a private street as shown on the plans received July 20, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. b. Any preserved trees removed will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. In lieu of any land dedication, full park fees shall be collected at the time of platting. With the one existing home, the total park fee for Minnewashta Creek Hill will be $8,000. b. Additional trail construction is not required as a part of this project; however during demolition and construction, the existing pedestrian trail shall be protected and remain open. No construction equipment shall be parked on or use the trail as a City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 11 staging area during construction. In addition, all match points encountered on the trail for demolition and/or construction shall be professionally constructed. 3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 4. The driveway grade must be adjusted so that runoff from the driveway will sheet drain to the east. The grades east of the proposed private drive must be adjusted to provide a drainage swale along the east side of the driveway to the proposed catch basin. 5. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 6. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 7. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The developer shall also extend storm sewer from the existing storm sewer manhole within Minnewashta Parkway at the south end of the property. The upstream storm sewer structure shall have a catch basin cover and a three-foot sump. 10. The lateral sanitary sewer and watermain connections to the existing trunk utilities must be north of the proposed private drive. The developer shall extend 8-inch lateral sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (top elevation 951.23’). 11. A manhole must be installed wherever a bend is proposed in the sanitary sewer. Individual sanitary sewer services must be 6-inch diameter. 12. Six-inch lateral watermain shall be wet tapped from the existing trunk utility. 13. A gate valve must be installed immediately west of the wet tap. 14. A hydrant is required at the end of the proposed watermain for flushing purposes. 15. Additional drainage and utility easements may be required based on the revised utility plan. Easements shall be minimum 20-feet wide centered over each utility. 16. According to the City’s Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup, therefore sanitary sewer and water hookup charges must be paid for two lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 for water-main. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 12 17. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 18. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 19. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 20. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 21. The driveway easement must clearly stipulate that the owners of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek Hill shall own and maintain the private drive and the private storm sewer north of the private driveway. The private street must be built to a 7-ton design, 20-foot width. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 22. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. The grading plan shall be revised to show silt fence down slope of all disturbed areas. Chanhassen’s standard detail for silt fence (Plate 5300) shall be included in the plans. b. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. c. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. d. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,355. e. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 13 b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot and must have a separate connection to the public sewer or to a manhole which is connected to the public sewer. d. Curb box valves cannot be located in driveways. e. Permits are required for retaining walls. Walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer. f. The developer must submit a proposed name for the private drive. 24. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed private street will need a street name. Submit name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.” 25. The applicant will work with staff to address the issues of safety of the private street accessing onto Minnewashta Parkway, drainage towards the lake, and providing appropriate parking and turn around areas. 26. The applicant will extend the private street in order to provide an adequate turn around on Lot 3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AWARD OF BID, LAKE SUSAN PARK PLAYGROUND. Todd Hoffman reviewed the bids that were received and opened for the Lake Susan Park playground. Councilman Lundquist asked about enlisting the help of neighborhoods. Todd Hoffman stated they would be using city staff for this project. Mayor Furlong asked how the playground equipment projects are doing with the overall budget. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council award the bid for the Lake Susan Park playground to Flanagan Sales, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota in the amount of $64,951.58. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong asked for an update on Chanhassen Day at the Landscape Arboretum. City Council Summary – August 22, 2005 14 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt provided an update on the Highway 212 ground breaking ceremony. Todd Hoffman provided an update on the Miracles for Mitch Triathlon. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Dan Keefe Planning Commission Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Andrew, Thomas & Matt Jones 480 Bighorn Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody here this evening and those watching at home. We’re glad you joined us. At this time I’d like to ask if there are any additions, modifications or changes to the agenda that was distributed with the council packet. If not, without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as distributed. There are no public announcements this evening. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 8, 2005 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated August 8, 2005 Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 26, 2005 b. Resolution#2005-67: Accept Street and Storm Sewer in Vasserman Ridge 3rd Addition, Project 04-04. d. Resolution#2005-68: Approve Materials Testing Quote for East Water Treatment Plan, Project 04-08. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 2 e. Approve Contract for Final Design Services to Kimley-Horn Associates for the 2005 MUSA Area, Project 04-05. f. Resolution#2005-69: Approve Quote for Engineering Consultant Work for Wells No. 10 & 11. g. Approve Purchase, Carver Beach Park and Minnewashta Heights Play Equipment Improvements. h. Resolution#2005-70: Approval of Resolution Authorizing Transfer and Closing of TIF Funds. i. Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Tonight I have included in your packet the sheriff’s office area report for the month of July, the area citation list and also the community service officer report. The deputies were busy in the month of July. The total calls for service were up by 362 for the month over last year. The criminal calls were down by 40 for the month, and again that’s compared to last year. Total calls for year to date are up 330 over last year and the criminal calls are down by 72 for the year, and I’ll go over that soon as far as reasons for that. Thefts were down by 29 for the month and down by 68 for the year. Thefts of vehicle were up for a little bit. They were up from 1 last year to 5 this year. I did a little bit of research into this and found out that 2 of them were parents that, or kids had taken the cars from parents and parents didn’t know about it. They had taken them without permission. One was a friend who used a vehicle and it actually wasn’t a theft. One of the calls was a repo man came and took the car without them knowing about it. And the last one was a legitimate stolen vehicle. The parties involved have been identified actually. They’ve been interviewed and identified. Vehicle was left in the driveway unlocked with the keys in it, and this was a crime of opportunity. If the vehicle would have been locked or if the keys had not have been in it, it would not have been taken. They found an open door on a very expensive SUV and off it goes. We found it a few hours later and it was smashed up in the middle of the road. Take precautions and protect yourself from things like this. You know take the keys out of your car. Lock your door. Close your garage. Don’t be a victim of a crime of opportunity. That’s really important to do these things. Damage to property was down by 14 over last year and then year to date, it’s up by 3. Traffic stops, there’s a lot of, they hit traffic real hard last month and that was 537 for the month which was up by 394 over last year, and then for year to date it’s up by 550 for the year. Citations were 382 for the month which is up by 226 over last year and those are up by 405 for the year so they’ve, last month they hit traffic very, very hard. Any questions at all on monthly numbers. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 3 Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, where are we at with the extra deputies or the, are you fully staffed up now with traffic detail and the extra deputy for that? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. As of, the month of July was actually the first complete month where we’ve been up to full staff. So that probably helped a bit. Councilman Lundquist: I have to believe that’s why there was 537 traffic stops. Sgt. Jim Olson: Absolutely, yes. And they’ve been hitting some different areas very hard that they’ve been targeting. We’ve really been targeting the Powers Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road, Kerber Boulevard intersections trying to curtail the passing on the right. We’ve been hitting that very, very hard and fast for quite a while, but especially last month so. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Sgt. Jim Olson: I also just wanted to bring up school will be in session shortly and in a couple of weeks, so motorists need to be careful when they’re driving through neighborhoods and school zones to slow down. Keep an eye on what you’re doing and the kids that will be walking to school and standing at bus stops, and deputies will be doing extra enforcement in school zones and in neighborhoods when schools are in session and kids are going back and forth to school. And if residents are having traffic issues in their neighborhood, I encourage them to give us a call, either at the sheriff’s office or they can even call me personally at 952-227-1601 and we can have some deputies monitor the situation, and also our traffic enforcement, traffic education car that we have now. Any other issues or anything for the sheriff’s office at all? Mayor Furlong: Anything else for Sergeant Olson? No? Very good. Sgt. Jim Olson: Have a nice evening. Enjoy the weather. Todd Gerhardt: I don’t see Mr. Geske. Mayor Furlong: We have his report in the packet. Things seem to be going pretty steady there so if any issues come forward we can bring it up at our next meeting. Are there any questions that the council members have that the City Manager can relay back to the Fire Department? No? Okay. Thank you. CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION; REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. Public Present: City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 4 Name Address Peter & LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail JoEllen Radermacher 2479 Bridle Creek Trail Sarah & Steve Dale 2487 Bridle Creek Trail Ben Merriman Eden Trace Corporation Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated Mayor, this is a continuation from the last meeting so staff was given some direction to work with the applicant to resolve a couple of issues so I’d like to go through those at this time and Paul Oehme, the City Engineer will also be addressing a portion of this regarding traffic. Again the subject site is located at the corner of Lyman and Galpin, the northwest corner. Some of the issues regarded design issues and those modifications have been made in the design standards which start on page, of your staff report, page 4. …permitted uses we did take out the hotel/motel as a possible use. The other thing that was talked about was building height. Building of the lots facing Trotters Ridge would be limited to two stories or 30 feet in height, so that’s a restriction of height on both of those. One of the issues that also came up revolved around signage. The current city sign ordinance states that there should be no lighting abutting residential districts so that would include Galpin. There’d be no perimeter signs on the buildings facing Galpin or to the north which would be facing Trotters Ridge. The sign ordinance does allow internal signage and it also allows signage facing Lyman and those could be eliminated. Just want to clarify too we are recommending that there be a sign, a business park identification sign on that, on Galpin to get identification to go into that business park and then once you get in there’ll be internal lit signs, again per city ordinance, but that modification has been made. Again site lighting, consistent with the city ordinance on individual lots be directed downward. Again consistent with the city ordinance. And also we modified a couple other conditions in your staff report and those would be condition number 48. Those have been met. The registered engineer. Condition number 53. The developer shall either dedicate Outlot C to the City for open space purposes or dedicate a conservation easement over Outlot C. They’re willing to dedicate or do the conservation easement. Either was acceptable to the applicant. Again we’re still working on the drainage issue and that will come in with the details on the next level of final plat and that’s for the drainage issue on Lot 2 in Trotters Ridge on Lots 5 and 6 and Outlot C… Again the building setback along Lot 6 would still be the 100 foot and we’re looking at that berm in that area. There would be no berming in the wetland or the treed area here. Over the wetland again implications to the saving the trees and the impact to the wetland. So with that the other recommendation was the traffic study and I’ll let Paul Oehme, the City Engineer address that. Paul Oehme: Thank you. Mayor, City Council members. As the council directed, we did approach the County on the issue of the right-in/right-out along Lyman Boulevard. The County did direct or request that the developer look at a traffic study in this area to see if a right-in/right- out would improve the situation, and how that would potentially impact or improve the situation in the long term. The applicant did hire a traffic consultant, TDI to look at this particular development and the right-in/right-out issue. The report has been included in your packet so I won’t go through that in too detail but bottom line is, the traffic study did not come back with any improvements, significant improvements to this area and long term future needs of both the corridor on Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. Based upon those findings from the traffic study, the City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 5 County did not wish to have that access be made at this time. Full access be provided off of Galpin. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else from staff at this, yeah okay. Kate Aanenson: Staff was also asked to evaluate the impacts regardless of what the traffic study said. To look at the impact of the road, a second entrance on Lyman. As the City Engineer indicated, the County was not supportive of that but if the council was to choose, it has significant impacts. The tree preservation area. There’s two alternatives shown here. Saving the trees on one side, or saving the trees on the other side to give back, so it definitely has an impact on the preservation area. So staff again declares not recommending that secondary entrance at this time. So with that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and we’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, can you show me Outlot B and the berming that is going in on Lot 5? Kate Aanenson: There is a wetland right here. There is significant setback that exceeds what’s required so what the staff is recommending based on the elevation of that building, the two stories, that we would look at that as part of site plan review. There’s a 14 foot buffer there to see when that site comes in, what’s the appropriate screening depending on the height and trying to get a berm in there. It meets the setback requirements so by putting a berm in you’re actually penalizing, so we’re trying to see what we can do to, based on elevations. We believe that a modest berm can be put in with trees on top that would provide a very effective screening base on the existing setback. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But you will work. Kate Aanenson: With that when it comes in for site plan, correct. Again each building will come through. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: On that berming Kate, with that, assuming that that’s now a two story building, does that allow any modifications in the parking at all or anything like that to push those buildings further to the south? Kate Aanenson: Sure. Councilman Lundquist: To increase that setback. Kate Aanenson: Again that’s a hypothetical square footage, which we showed for illustrative purposes but certainly when that comes in that’d be something we’d look at to try to maximize that. That would be the goal. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 6 Councilman Lundquist: So we can always increase that if we want to at that time. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then Paul, on the traffic study, or Mr. Mayor, and maybe this is a question for you that. How do they, as I read through there, how does TDI, how do they determine where the traffic’s going to come from and to and from and which direction they’re going and all of that? All of that information that they used. Paul Oehme: Yeah, the TDI did use the ITE trip generation manual to determine the traffic projections and it’s consistent with the daily traffic that we had estimated. The percentages were allocated. Typically allocated. In terms of where the population centers are. Typically you know we would envision most of the traffic going to the Minneapolis-St. Paul downtown areas versus out west farther. Just as an educated rule of thumb. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so they use that empirical and then based on population centers and types of businesses and the expected route to get there? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Is that kind of what their methodology is then? Paul Oehme: Yeah. A lot of the analysis was heavily weighted toward the 212 connection… Councilman Lundquist: Okay, that was going to be my next question. Does that assumes that 212’s is in there too? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: Yep. That’s all I had, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff. Kate, question on a couple of the proposed changes or a couple of the modifications in the staff report. Try to get back to my spot here. The first one deals with the signs and the lighted signs. Did I understand you that the ordinance, our current city ordinance doesn’t allow lighted signs towards residential. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: So under our ordinance there wouldn’t be lighted signs to the east across Galpin towards the Stone Creek or to the north across the property line to the Trotters Ridge development. Under our current ordinance. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 7 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And, but as I read this under Section G(7), it would prohibit, it would go beyond what our current ordinance says and not allow them anywhere. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Even towards other industrial areas or down towards Lyman. Kate Aanenson: Right. Where they wouldn’t be seen internally. So if you wanted to modify that, just say. Mayor Furlong: I mean our current ordinance. Kate Aanenson: Per city ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess that’s the question. If something’s not addressed within the PUD standards in the ordinance. Kate Aanenson: If it’s silent then you go back to the underlying ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. The other question was on the site lighting which was. Kate Aanenson: That’d be number 5 on page 10 I believe. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, Section 8, Lighting. Is there site lighting shall be directed towards in the interior of the individual lots. As I was reading the other preceding standards there, we already have standards in there with regard to. Kate Aanenson: It’s half foot at the property line. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me? Kate Aanenson: The current city ordinance says a half foot at the property line. Half foot candle. And it might be better to put something. Mayor Furlong: And that’s number 4 there, correct? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So you’ve kind of got, I’m not sure if there’s anything qualifying under number 5. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I guess my question is, as I see this, if number 4, if somebody has a building and they’ve got lights for security purposes on the side of that building, they already have to be shielded and they have to be at a half candle lamination by the time they get to the property line. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 8 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And number 5 here, could that be interpreted that the lights on the buildings would not be allowed since they might be pointed away from the interior and we’d have to have poles of lights around the property line? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That’s kind of how that reads. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So be directed towards the interior. That might be hard. Mayor Furlong: Alright. I just wanted to make sure I was reading that correctly, Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: One other follow up. We talked a little bit before Kate. The conservation easement on the dedication and the clarification for the permanent conservation easement. Talk about, as it reads now and just clarify. If I understood you correctly, that, because of the density transfer that we’re doing here, that there isn’t any, that essentially becomes a permanent easement because of the density on the rest of the site? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, because by approving the site plan you’ve said that that’s an outlot and in that outlot we’ll put restrictions regarding what you can do with that which is pretty much nothing, you know trimming trees they’d have to verify with us so that’s the intent. It has no building value on an outlot. You can’t build on an outlot. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And what would be the change if we were to add that word permanent in there at all? Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure if the City Attorney wanted. Adding the word permanent to the conservation easement as opposed to just a conservation easement. Roger Knutson: It’s fine to add it. Kate Aanenson: If they were to remove it from the outlot status they’d have to come back before this body and ask. Roger Knutson: I mean it’s permanent anyway until you. Councilman Lundquist: Until you change it. Kate Aanenson: Right. Roger Knutson: Change it. As you say it’s permanent, you still can change it. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 9 Mayor Furlong: On the dedication, just to follow up on your question. The difference is whether the title is held by the city through dedication or whether it’s held by. Kate Aanenson: Because sometimes people feel that might be an additional extraction or compensation so it is something that we’d negotiated. Some people are comfortable giving it to the city. Some people want to maintain that control, so the city’s not in there doing something. So it’s something we generally negotiate with the developer. The goal is that it stay in perpetuity as the trees. Councilman Lundquist: Which we would have more control if we did a dedication to the city versus a conservation easement. Kate Aanenson: Could. Councilman Peterson: …have to maintain it right? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s sometime is a problem too. Yeah, trees fall down or whatever. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Good point. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, are they using that as a part of their impervious surface? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Todd Gerhardt: So if we took ownership of that, could they still get credit for that? Kate Aanenson: We’ve done that before where we’ve taken the ownership of it. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this time for staff? Maybe some follow up. Mr. Merriman, from an applicant standpoint, anything you’d like to add this evening? Ben Merriman: Not at this point. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I don’t know, we did receive substantial public comment at our last meeting. I certainly want to make sure we have an opportunity if people want to be heard as well so I would allow and invite people to come and make public comments on this matter. My request would be that we focus on the changes and the additional information that we received tonight rather than going back and re-visiting other points but if anybody is interested in providing the council with their comments I would certainly invite them forward now. Please come forward and state your name and address. LuAnn Sidney: Mayor Furlong, City Council, staff and applicant. My name is LuAnn Sidney. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail. I’d like to make a few comments concerning Eden Trace’s proposal. First I would like to thank staff and the applicant for all the effort that has gone into this proposal and for being sensitive to the concerns of neighbors in making this a PUD. I agree City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 10 with the proposed revised conditions and amendments to the current staff report and I’d like to emphasize a few additional points which I emailed this weekend. Condition 2, I’d like to see the addition of a statement about tree preservation fencing being placed at least 2 feet beyond the drip line, and that will help preserve some of the mature oaks that are in that area. And then condition 36(k). I would like to add that condition to show the proposed contour lines, the proposed contour lines for the berm between Outlot B and Lot 5. And I would like to have it there just for the future to show people when they come to investigate the property what we’ve come up with for a preliminary plat. And I’d also like to make sure that we make Outlot C a permanent conservation easement because outlots are outlots and they can be changed and I think the word permanent would serve us well and preserve those trees for the future. Thank you again and especially I’d like to thank the applicant for your time, effort and patience of this proposal. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, Ms. Sidney. Could you repeat your second request for my benefit. LuAnn Sidney: Condition 36(k). Councilman Labatt: Is that a new one? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. LuAnn Sidney: Yeah. Can’t help it. Show the proposed contour lines for the berm between Outlot B and Lot 5. And that will provide some guidance for the future when that lot develops. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Anything problematic with either of those Kate? Kate Aanenson: No. Sarah Dale: Sarah Dale, 2487 Bridle Creek Trail. Our concern is that there is no berm required between Outlot B and Building 5 and I’d like to see something to give us some protection for the future for that building. It’s a distance but we still think we need a berm with trees. The developer has said he has no problem with that and there is room for it there so we’d like to see something required so that we do have that protection. JoEllen Radermacher: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is JoEllen Radermacher. I live at 2479 Bridle Creek Trail. Our home does back right up to the outlot, building number 5, Outlot B there and I do concur with LuAnn and Sarah on our request to have a berm. The wetland area. There’s no trees. It’s a grassy area. We would have very visible views of this building. It not only would help protect us but it would also encourage the wildlife that does live in our area that we’d like to see maintained also. We also, there was a previous and unless I misunderstood there was a reference made to other buildings, business parks that are built within residential areas and I think one of those Chanhassen Lakes. And we went and measured those buildings. We thought they were more like around the 20 foot with parapet so we’d like to have some consideration to 25 foot with parapet to be in conjunction with those City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 11 areas. And also the type of structure that was used with the color of the stone and the texturized. We thought that that was very nice looking concept. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Chris Butcher: Good evening. I’m Chris Butcher from 2407 Bridle Creek Trail and I too want to thank the applicant and city staff for all the efforts in trying to make a nice transition between the business park and our homes for us. I just want to point out that I am one of the four homes that directly abuts the building, Lot number 6, and just want to make the statement that when we moved into our home we knew that this property was going to be developed at some point. The development wasn’t the surprise to us. The proposed or potential building size was shocking to us so the fact that perhaps a 4 story building that spanned 4 lots, that was shocking to us. We appreciate the effort that have been put forth to try and modify that for us. We’d still like additional, a little bit more though. Little extra effort. Too, looking at the building heights and what we’ll be looking at when we sit at our dinner tables each evening, and the fact that there would be even a 2 story building out there. And then the setback. I know I talked about it in e- mails to you a couple times about potential 150 foot setback and I’m not, I don’t, I haven’t heard anything else about that but looking at the possibility that if it were to be stipulated now, that where a berm with 150 foot setback, so when someone who does come in to put a building there, that that is already stipulated so we can have the additional berming and buffering. So thank you very much. Joel Lehrke: Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road. I did ask staff this evening to bring the preliminary materials that they have for one of the buildings. I see Kate did bring that. One of the concerns I had that we talk about at the previous meeting was quality construction materials, but we actually didn’t have a true definition of what quality construction materials would be and I thought it would be a good idea this evening if you as the City Council could see what the first idea was. I haven’t seen it myself so I’ll be seeing it for the first time too, if Kate would be willing to lay it up here in front of the camera and just point a few things out about it. The other comment I do have is transition. I’ve talked to a few of you again today representatives. We won’t go in too much with the concept plan but I do know you have a concept plan but that’s also why we have City Council. This was planned in 1991. It didn’t say where it was put in stone. That’s why I think we have you there is to make determinations saying does this really fit…forefathers were thinking out there. My opinion still on this is that it should have a better transition on the north and on the east side of more of an office building than a warehouse type thing. That the density is too high as the previous lady stated. These buildings are quite, quite large and while we talk about an IOP, the only difference I really think between this PUD and the IOP is these buildings maybe don’t have evaporators or such thing as that on them yet, which is nice not to have. Don’t get me wrong, but we’re looking at some pretty massive building sites for a transition. I think the building sites still could look better. I don’t think anything’s going to happen tonight. I think you should think about it in the future that just putting huge warehouses in and saying it’s not quite as bad isn’t really a correct statement. It is. So with that I do ask that we do take a look and see what their idea of quality construction material is for the first building. Thanks. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 12 Mayor Furlong: Anybody else that would like to speak from a public comment standpoint? No? Okay. Well thank you. We appreciate your comments this evening and those that we received by phone and e-mail as well. I guess for staff here, Ms. Aanenson, some of the questions I think indirectly was asked with regard to the 2 foot, beyond the drip line. Is that, as well for Mr. Merriman. I mean is that a? Kate Aanenson: The City Forester, before you can begin construction inspects to make sure all fencing is up and is in the appropriate location so. Mayor Furlong: So the appropriate location may be, I mean 2 feet. It may be at the drip line. It may be more than 2 feet. Kate Aanenson: Right, exactly. So. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With regard to the contours. Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. I think when it comes back for final plat we can certainly show that. And that would be (k). 36(k). Mayor Furlong: And the conservation easement, permanent again? Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then there was the issue brought up about the berm on Outlot, between B and Lot 5. Kate Aanenson: I think this question was asked a couple different ways. If you look at this plan, this is a 100 foot setback so that’s this line right here so this building is already set back about 150 feet. So it’s set back quite a ways so if we were to push it back further, you know the goal is here, there’s room in here. If we’d like to put a condition on there that when it comes back for final plat we show some contours and how it would based on the current location, how that would, similar to what we’re saying on the other ones. Show how that would work. But I’m not sure pushing it forward, and I’m not sure if the intent is to get high berm that this one, because you’re either setting back further or you’re moving it closer and doing a berm. It’s, so I’d certainly add. The goal is to put additional trees and the developer’s already agreed to that. Mayor Furlong: Between B and Outlot, and the building on 5? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do you want to comment on this? Ben Merriman: Basically there’s only 16 feet to work with. We have a setback from the wetlands and then if I’m correct it’s about another additional 16 feet? And in that 16 feet if we had to do a berm, it would have to be a 3 to 1 and then we could undulate the berm as well to try City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 13 to, so it isn’t just a big line, but you’re only really going to be able to work with a 3 to 1 slope within the 16 feet. Kate Aanenson: …condition to that effect because we don’t know what the shape of that building’s going to be so within that secondary setback, outside of the wetland buffer, that we would work to put a berm in, in that 16 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Looking here there was the issue of the berming. This was I think on Lot 6. 150 foot setback currently for Lot 6. There’s 100 foot buffer if I’m not mistaken from the north property line. And there’s no additional setback. I think we talked last meeting about, what the developer’s planning to do within that 100 foot buffer from a, I don’t know terrace berming or some sort of undulated. Ben Merriman: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so maybe understanding that a little bit better what they’re planning to do but, and if I recall the issue was, and it was brought up, you know is there, is there anything available there to go beyond the 100 foot without going into Outlot C and so I guess that was. Ben Merriman: Basically there isn’t. I mean if we take another 50 feet and come south with that property line 50 feet, then we have to take the equivalent amount of square footage into Outlot C and it can be on either side, on Lot 5 or Lot 6 but we’d have to squeeze that dedicated area in by the same amount of square footage. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the other question I saw was on the materials. Question about materials being proposed. Kate Aanenson: There is a project moving forward that will be going to the Planning Commission assuming this gets a recommendation and they come back for final plat, that would be one of the conditions. It’d be this building, Lot 4, which is the most interior backing up to Chaska on the other side of the wetland. So this would be the face from the cul-de-sac which would be, so this would be facing in. So there’d be a building in front of it. If you could zoom in on that for one second. So there would be a building, maybe it’s better to show you on the colored drawing. So there would be a building sitting in front. It’d be this building behind so when you’d come in you’d have this elongated driveway going back. I’m sorry, now you can zoom back out. So there is burnish block, split face rock on both sides. Articulated. It hasn’t gone to Planning Commission. Staff is working on the staff report right now regarding intensity of colors but it is a highly articulated building, similar to what we have in the Chan Business Center. And I just want to add one other comment regarding the city did contemplate a land use recommendation. It was revisited, the land use recommendation and that’s in the very beginning of the staff report. There was a proposal brought before the city to look at a transition of medium density, some office industrial. That was rejected by the neighborhood and actually pursued it through the court system and so that’s why when we updated the comprehensive plan we did not revisit the land use change. Because we got the indication the neighbors preferred the office industrial land use. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 14 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any follow-up questions from council or anything else that we heard? Okay. Alright. Good information. At this point I’ll bring it back to the council for discussion. Some of the additional information we received this evening. Where’d we like to start? Councilman Peterson or Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright, I’ll take it I guess. I like the first one. I think this is a good example of neighborhoods and developers getting together and working out their problems. I think it came a long way from where it started on the Planning Commission 2 weeks ago to right now. I tend to be very sympathetic with homeowners in these neighborhoods because they were here first. You know you’re the one that has invested your families in your future in this city and that’s why we are who we are and so you need to be protected and heard and I hope that you felt like that happened. That you know this is going to, this is here in front of us and I hope you felt like you were heard and that you could make the changes you needed so you can blend in with this development and make it work for everybody. Some of the issues were, you know understanding traffic volumes and what works best and did we tackle that issue and figure it out? I say yes. That we did unturn most stones that we could to figure out entrances and right- ins/right-outs and so I think we should be proud of ourselves for being able to do that. Tree preservation. That’s a big thing in our city for us and did we do that? Did we try to do the best we can to protect the natural assets we do have which are our trees and I would say yes again. I think the developer did a good job in respecting that and in following through with that commitment. And the last issue I think we had was just trying to protect neighbors from unsightly views and you know that I still think is a work in progress on final plat to come back. It can be tweaked more and I think that in the end we can all leave and feel good about what has happened here tonight so I will support this. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Tom I’m over here. Todd Gerhardt: They’re all interchangeable. Mayor Furlong: They are. One of you go next. Councilman Lundquist: I would echo what Councilwoman Tjornhom stated before. I think a couple of the minor changes, the addition of condition 36(k) with the contour lines. Adding the permanent conservation easement on Outlot C. Adding a condition to construct a berm within the 16 foot wetland buffer on Lot 5 is a fine addition. The 150 foot setback on Lot 6, I think that my opinion is, from what we’ve seen from the staff and the developer that the 100 foot that we have, coupled with the way that they intend to build that berm as kind of having that against the wall with the smaller building that we’re looking at here, will in effect give about the same, the same thing that pushing it back 50 feet is going to probably sacrifice more of the natural and I think the developer, we won’t know until we see the final I guess and we’ll never know what that building looks like until then but I’m comfortable with that, with the way it is on that as the developer’s talked about it. I think Mr. Mayor as you talked about the conditions on the signs in the interior lighting, I would support the removal of those and just go with I think the ordinance offers protection and doesn’t muddy the waters so much there as that so I would support the City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 15 removal of that. I forget the numbers and letters are on those two conditions. On the interior lighting and the signage as well. Lighted signage so with that I would support the proposal as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Thanks Tom. Mayor Furlong: I’m looking your way this time. Councilman Labatt: I’ll save my one thing here for last but I guess this is a project where this developer has developed in Chanhassen and has always done quality projects so we’re not dealing with a company here that is going to just put up tin boxes. So I think that the neighbors can feel rest assured that these buildings will be of quality looking buildings with nice features. I guess I’m in agreement with everything that’s been mentioned by Councilwoman Tjornhom or Lundquist as far as all the additions and amendments and deletions. I’m still torn and concerned about the traffic and the traffic study and how can they predict where the work force, where the people are going to be working in these buildings and occupying them. Are they going to come from downtown? Are they going to come from Chaska? Victoria and…offices and how do you predict that and using this ITE manual to figure out that most of your traffic is going to come from the east. I just have a hard time looking at that and accepting that. If you’re going to come from 212 and either come across Lyman or you’re going to proceed through the intersection at Galpin and take a right in into your office for the morning, or you’re going to take a left onto Stone Creek. Or take a right on Stone Creek and a left. Or right on Galpin and a left on Stone Creek, so I’m not happy with that. But I’m going to accept it because that will be 4 to 1 if I don’t so. Other than that, that’s about it. I’m not happy with the report but I’m going to have to live with it. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: I would agree with all of my fellow council people. I think the additions since last week and this week have made it a better project and we should move ahead. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. This is one of those projects where the process is, becomes as important as the final result. I think in this particular case between the participation of residents and other interested parties the cooperation of the applicant and staff from the very beginning and trying to work out what’s best for most. I think this is an example where really the process has worked. There is never going to be a perfect project when you have competing interests, and here we do have competing interests. Even within some of the neighbors. Some of the residents. And ultimately as I mentioned to a number of people that I spoke to prior to the meeting and I’ll say it here publicly is while it’s our job as much as anything else is try to find balance and to do it within the law within the ordinance and to make sure that we try to get the best project that we can for the City of Chanhassen. That should be all of our goals and I know I, I’m comfortable that our council up here seeks to do that. To balance the interest of the property owner with their right to develop and those of the neighbors with their, what they have now. What they see now and what they’re going to see and other interests in terms of safety and storm water issues, City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 16 drainage issues and such like that. I think we’ve done that. I think with regard, as Councilman Lundquist mentioned, items that were added in the development plan, G(7) and H(5), I think our ordinance provides sufficient protection. My concern is that with these two, when we’re talking about sign lighting shall be directed interior. I can look at that and say one interpretation is that all lighting has to be on the perimeter of the property line and focused in. I don’t think that’s what anybody anticipates. You know prisons do that and that’s not what we’re looking for here. But lighting on the side of the building for security purposes that’s properly shielded and with low illumination at the property line. I think that meets objections that people are looking for without perhaps causing some other problems so I appreciate Councilman Lundquist’s supporting the elimination of those two. Again on details. The question with regard to the drip line. I appreciate Ms. Sidney’s request there. I have full confidence in our forester that she’s going to put that where it needs to be based upon the protection of the tree, and if that’s 2 feet, if it’s 4 feet or 6 feet, I think that’s where it will be. The other ones with regard to contour lines, conservation easement, I guess from what I’ve heard tonight coming into tonight I was leaning towards the dedication of that outlot to the city. From what I’ve heard tonight for other reasons I prefer to see that as an easement, a conservation easement with the title not coming to the City. If that’s acceptable to the developer. And so I’m confident as Councilman Labatt said that the developer’s going to come forward with good developments. We’ll have an opportunity to look at all the materials in the site plans as they come forward as well, which will give us further input into the process for all the neighbors and those most directly affected so I think we’ve got the best development here. Keeping all interested parties, all factors considered. I think it’s going to be an asset to the city and for that reason I will be supporting this this evening, as it sounds like my fellow council members will too. We never get all the answers perhaps that we’re looking for but I don’t think anybody can say that we haven’t asked the questions and in some cases we’ve asked them 2 or 3 times and that’s what we can do. With that I think we can move forward here. Steve. Councilman Labatt: Well I just wanted to, for Kate. The maximum building height for Buildings 5 and 6. Make sure we’re all clear on what. Kate Aanenson: Two stories or 30 feet. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Which is down from what we were looking at 2 weeks ago. Councilman Labatt: I just wanted to make that everybody knew that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion on this? If not, Councilman Lundquist you want to take a stab at the motion you started last week. Two weeks ago. Councilman Lundquist: Kate do you want these in 3 separate ones probably? Kate Aanenson: That’s where there’s modification in some of those. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 17 Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, okay. I would move that City Council approve the ordinance rezoning the property located within Chanhassen West Business Park from A2 to PUD incorporating the development design standards as modified to eliminate, what were those two again? Mayor Furlong: Let me find them. I think it’s, going to be clear. Councilman Lundquist: The interior lighting and. Mayor Furlong: G(7) and H(5) would be removed from the staff report. Make sure the lighted signs and the sight line issues, those were added subsequent to the last report. Councilman Lundquist: So incorporating the design standards as modified with the elimination of those two, based on the findings of fact attached to the report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves the ordinance rezoning the property located within the Chanhassen West Business Park from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) incorporating the development design standards contained within the staff report, modified to delete items G(7) and H(5), and based upon the findings of fact attached to the report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Lundquist: I’d move that the City Council approves preliminary plat for Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson dated June 17, ’05 based on the findings of fact attached to the report, subject to conditions 1 through 54 with the addition of 36(k). To add the contour lines on Outlot B. No. Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Outlot B. And modification of condition 54. 53. Dedicate a permanent conservation easement for Outlot C and the addition of condition 55. That the developer shall construct a berm within the 16 foot wetland buffer on Lot 5. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick point. I’m sorry, go ahead. Kate Aanenson: You can’t be in the wetland buffer zone, just for clarification. It’s beyond now. There’s another… City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 18 Councilman Lundquist: Didn’t I say wetland. Oh, I meant to say the setback. The 16 foot setback. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Outside the wetland buffer. Mayor Furlong: Question, clarification Councilman Lundquist. For the condition right about that 54, at our last meeting when we started working through this, I thought we took out references to the property to the north. There were drainage issues. The issue here is, I don’t want to, I’m not trying to exclude Lot 2 but I don’t want to exclude other lots along there as well. Councilman Lundquist: You’re correct. Lots, in condition 54 should be modified to say drainage issues along Lots 5, 6 and Outlot C. Mayor Furlong: So that we cover all the. Councilman Lundquist: That would cover all of the developments, or all of the lots in Trotters Ridge. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat for Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to the report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in the south and east property line bufferyards to meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval. 2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities. Fencing shall remain in place until construction is completed. 3. All trees shown as preserved on plans dated 6/17/05 shall be protected. Any trees damaged or removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 4. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 19 5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 6. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 7. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates and meet NURP standards. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 8. Stable emergency overflows shall be provided for the proposed pond on site. The emergency overflows shall be clearly labeled on the plan and a detail is needed. The emergency overflows may be stabilized with a turf re-enforcement mat or fabric and riprap. 9. Notes on the plan describing timing of temporary stabilization with Type 1 mulch and seed or erosion control blanket and seed shall be included. The notes shall include timing of stabilization as well as the rate of mulch application (2 tons per acre, disc anchored). 10. All riprap/fabric at the flared end section shall be installed within 24 hours of flared end section installation. 11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12. Erosion control blanket shall be specified in the swale from the flared end section to the wetland along the west boundary of the site. The blanket specified shall adequately protect City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 20 the area from designed velocity and depth of flow. The blanket and seed in the swale shall be installed within 5 days of culvert installation. Erosion control blanket is recommended for the pond slopes from around 952 to 942 contours. All blanket on the plan shall be shown as a shaded area. 13. Temporary sediment basins shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope areas. The areas of temporary sediment basins shall be labeled on the plan. A temporary outlet (e.g., a perforated riser and rock cone) shall be provided for the pond; details should be provided. Temporary basins shall be constructed in the area of the proposed permanent storm water pond, the southeast corner of the site prior to discharging to the culvert under Galpin Boulevard, and possibly in the northwest area of the site to handle water runon from the north prior to discharge to the wetland. 14. Any and all area inlets or drop inlets in paved areas shall be protected with alternate controls/Wimco details. The engineer shall research and provide alternate designs for Wimco-type inlet controls to fit the various types of inlets. 15. Additional inlet controls shall be provided for adjacent inlets on Galpin Boulevard and Street A. 16. Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the wetland. 17. Type 1 and Type 2 silt fence locations shall be specified on the plan. Type 2 silt fence shall be installed around all wetland areas and in the southeast corner of the site to protect the culvert under Galpin Boulevard. The silt fence shall be extended along the south side to close the gap in the silt fence. 18. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 19. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $413,661. 20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 21. In lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction, full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat for the proposed Chanhassen West Business Park. At current rates, the park fee would total $359,500 (35.95 x $10,000 per acre). 22. A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 21 23. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 24. Provide a water service for Lot 6. 25. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 26. Fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 27. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 28. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 29. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire code Section 503.2.3. 30. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage be vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota fire code Section 501.4. 31. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including storm water ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, and buffer areas used as PVC. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 32. The interior lot storm sewer will require private easements to be dedicated where the sewer crosses from one lot to another. 33. Private utility easements are required for the sanitary sewer and water lines that serve Lot 4 but go through Lot 5. 34. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 22 35. On the site plan: a. Revise the cul-de-sac pavement radius to 48 feet. b. Revise the parking driveway aisle from 24 feet to 26 feet wide. c. Revise the public street width from 32 feet to 36 feet wide. d. Increase the full access width off Galpin Boulevard to 44 feet and create three lane access. e. Shift Lots 1 and 8 easterly access further toward the west and realign the across each other. f. Show at least one, 6-foot wide, side walk along the public street. g. Show the access off Galpin Boulevard turning curb radius. h. Realign lot 5 access perpendicular to the shared driveway. i. Show street lights. j. Show handicap parks and ramps. 36. On the grading plan: a. Extend silt fence type between the storm pond and Outlot A. Silt fence Type II must be used adjacent to wetlands and storm pond. b. Revise contour lines to match 3:1 maximum slope and tie the proposed contour lines with the existing contours for Lots 4, 5, south of Lot 2 and northeast of Lot 1. c. Show the proposed contour lines for Lot 6. d. Show all retaining walls top and bottom elevations. e. Show all emergency overflows (EOF). The EOF must be 1.5' lower than the adjacent lowest floor. f. Revise Lot 6 parking slope to 0.7% minimum. g. Add a note to remove any existing structure and access off Galpin Boulevard and all disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. h. Show 75-foot minimum construction rock entrance. i. No retaining walls structure is allowed within public street and/or public utility easements, revise accordingly. j. Show 20-foot utility easement for the storm sewer between Lots 2 and 3 k. Show contour lines for the berm on Outlot B. 37. On the utility plans: a. Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements. b. Show the proposed sanitary and storm sewer stubs inverts. c. Add storm sewer schedule. d. Public storm sewer pipe type must be RCP and 15-inch minimum diameter. e. The last street accessible storm manhole (STMH#2) must be built with a sump. f. Revise sanitary sewer pipe from DIP to PVC-C900. g. On the utility profile show all sewer and pipe crossings. h. Minimum vertical separation must be 18 inches between watermain and sewer. i. Call out watermain fittings City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 23 38. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered Civil Engineer in the state of Minnesota with an approved safety fence on top of it. Also, it will require a building permit from the Building Department. 39. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 2109, 2110 2204, 3104, 3109, 5201, 5205, 5214 and 5215. 40. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota must sign all plans. 41. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. 42. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded against the lots for each of the entrance drives. 43. Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner. 44. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, MnDOT, etc. 45. 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 and traffic control plans. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 46. All private streets are required to have 24-foot wide paved streets from back-of-curb to back- of-curb, be built to a 7-ton design and contained within a 40-foot wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private streets were built to a 7-ton design. 47. Six-foot wide sidewalks are required. 48. All of the proposed building pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the HWL of the adjacent ponds. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 24 49. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City’s Building Department. 50. Comply with Carver County memo dated June 28, 2005 and revise the plans accordingly. 51. Revise plan sheet size to 24 x 36 using scale 50. 52. The developer shall dedicate a permanent conservation easement over Outlot C.” 53. The applicant shall work with staff to resolve any drainage issues along Lots 5, 6 and Outlot C. 54. The developer shall construct a berm within the 16 foot setback outside the wetland buffer zone on Lot 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Lundquist: Move the Chanhassen City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen dated June 17, ’05, subject to conditions 1 through 10. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? We’ll give that one to Councilwoman Tjornhom. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A no loss determination shall be completed for Basin F 31-34. 2. Exemption requests shall be completed for Basins F 51-80 N, Basin F 91-97 and Wetland A. 3. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring. 4. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species, particularly purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 25 5. Several corrections must be made to the Wetland Mitigation Plan (sheet 10 of 13): a. Wetland A is shown as an impact area. Upon finalization of exemption paperwork, mitigation will not be required for this wetland; b. Wetland C (Basin F 87-90) is 0.05 acres in area; and c. Wetland D (Basin F 81-86) is 0.09 acres in area. 6. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 7. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation (including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of credit. 8. Drainage and utility easements a minimum of 20 feet in width shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the wetland. 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), 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. Appreciate your help in the process. Let’s move on now to our next item. MINNEWASHTA CREEK HILL, 6560 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, ROBERT RICK (FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TIM & MARY COLLERAN), PLANNING CASE 05-15; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This request is located on Minnewashta Parkway just south of Highway 7. It’s a request to divide one lot into 3 single family homes. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on August 22nd and recommended 6 to 1 regarding the proposed development. The one no vote regarded consideration of the historic value of the home. Staff did include some pictures regarding that and did some research on that City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 26 and it’s unclear whether or not it has historic significance. It’s not on any listing so we provided that information for you. The plat itself includes 3 lots. There is, was a recommendation always supposed to do a public street and in your staff report on the last page, I’ll have you zoom in on that. We did show how this project could be subdivided with a public street. A cul-de-sac off of Minnewashta Parkway. A couple of concerns with that. Certainly the most significant was it pushed the homes further back and eliminated 27 additional trees. There was an opportunity to consider an eyebrow besides the cul-de-sac. Problematic with both of those regarding grading and the like and the retaining wall. So in reviewing that, using the existing driveway and the attempt to save additional trees. In working with the neighborhood, pushing those houses forward more, staff recommended the use of the private drive. I did include for you the revised consideration of the area calculations. Staff took a more conservative approach in the calculation of the lot area. The revised lot area’s included now based on further legal opinion is that the private drive, the common portion was taken out of the lot configuration so that is included in your lot, revised lot calculation I gave you. All lots. It doesn’t change the plat in itself. All lots do meet the required standards. With the PUD ordinance because it’s in the shoreland district and the PUD adjacent to the collector street, it requires a 50 foot setback so the homes are set back significantly. Again this is just a rough idea of what the layout would be. Of course we show the proposed building pads. We have included in your packet some potential home designs on the site that would work. We do want to, as the homes come in, look at additional turn around, specifically on the middle lot. We don’t anticipate a school bus going up there. It’s anticipated that the children would come to the street on Minnewashta Parkway. I believe that was addressing most of the concerns of, that were addressed. With that, staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the variances and with the conditions in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the cul-de-sac option. What does that do to the, does that push any of the lots to non-compliance for size or hard cover? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Lundquist: It pushes the house back, houses back and takes out the trees. Kate Aanenson: Correct. The first, we wouldn’t give a variance for a private street if the only goal was to get additional lots. So first you have to demonstrate, if you met the ordinance, that you could do it. So we need to go through that exercise to see if it meets city code. Then based on that we evaluate what makes more sense based on grading and tree loss, environmental features, so that led us to the recommendation. There’s an existing horseshoe driveway. These homes are kind of in the same line as the existing home. It has the deep setback. If you were to look at, this is hard to see. If you can zoom in. The existing home sits right here so if you went with the cul-de-sac, it pushes the house more to the back, affecting what has been the privacy of those homes that are behind that, so it creates a greater separation. A larger lot depth by using the private drive. I did forward to you an e-mail that had some concerns regarding height setbacks. The shoreland district. The height, 35 feet. If that’s the maximum height. Obviously all the houses would be in excess of that being at 50 foot setback and 20 from the commonality City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 27 of the private drive. So again we did go through the different concerns of the cul-de-sac or the private street. One of the other concerns was, at the Planning Commission was the, people heavily traveled on that sidewalk. Again there’s one touch down point as opposed to the cul-de- sac. I’m not sure with the cul-de-sac you’re getting additional parking issues with the private drive. Again it’s wider for most of that and it’s not, you could make the common portion way back here and bring this drive and actually have it narrower but based on, because the lots are over sized you get a wider area for turn around so we think that works well. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, what is our policy regarding historical structures. Just not that I’m saying it is but I’m just wondering. Kate Aanenson: Well, that is one area. We do have some Chaska brick homes. That’s something that we talked to the Planning Commission. It’s come up and we’ve started doing inventory and there has never been a consensus but that’s on our to do list at the Planning Commission is start looking at that. It was raised by one of our commissioners so we will be looking at it. I think it’s significantly on some of the Chaska brick homes. The one that we do have that’s on the register is the old St. Hubert’s is the only building that we have on the historical register. The old, old St. Hubert’s. They’re in their third location. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Ms. Aanenson, on the private street, and looking at your colored map there might be easiest. What is the, as the private street comes in across Lots 1 and 2 up to Lot 3, what’s the distance between the front property line there on Lot 2, which is the right-of-way of Minnewashta Parkway and the right-of-way of the private street easement? Kate Aanenson: Right there? Mayor Furlong: Right. Approximately. Kate Aanenson: Oh, another 10 feet. It’s probably 20 to 25 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so there’s separation distance there for cars coming in and lights and possibly somebody coming down from a safety standpoint. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: The private street, there’s a large retaining wall across the front of what will be Lot 2 and 3 if this site plan is approved. With the private street that retaining wall is retained. Kate Aanenson: That was one of the goals too. That was the other complexity of putting in that cul-de-sac. You’re grading a lot more. Pushing that in. Making steeper slopes. This kind of we’re working with existing grades, which is one of the reasons why this driveway ended up on that side. You’re working with the grade. Certainly you couldn’t move that, do additional grading but again the goal was to try to use what’s existing there. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 28 Mayor Furlong: And I guess that leads to my next question with regard to the driveway on Lot 2. Working with the grades. Putting it on the north side of that lot puts it up next to Lot 3. I know we’ve dealt with turn arounds and private streets in making sure we have sufficient room. To make sure that a delivery truck coming into Lot 2 has sufficient room to turn around, the private street if I understand correctly is a shared access point as opposed to a driveway which is a single or access for a single property. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Can that private, what sort of turn around do we have designed into that private street at that end? Could it be extended into Lot 3 so that Lot 3 owners know that people coming off Lot 2, that is still a private street. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Originally that’s what this was showing. That that common portion of it, and now that that interpretation, that that’s extracted from your lot configuration, that can be added back in and that would give a greater commonality portion and it would provide that back up. If they couldn’t put it internally on their own property, a back up. Mayor Furlong: And I guess I’m thinking delivery trucks and those types of things. Kate Aanenson: Garbage. Mayor Furlong: Garbage as well. Making sure that we have sufficient turn around there. Kate Aanenson: Yes. We’ve spoken to the applicant about that and they are going to accommodate that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do we put that in to the subdivision somewhere? In there. Kate Aanenson: Sure. We can find a place to make that modification. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, is the applicant here? This evening. Would you like to come forward and address the council on any matters? You’re welcome to at this time. Robert Rick: I don’t see a need. I just need to make a comment that. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you come forward to the microphone then. Robert Rick: Yeah my name is Robert Rick. I live at 4700 Otter Lake Road in White Bear Lake, Minnesota. I’d just like to thank staff. They were pleasant to deal with and you know gave us a lot of guidance and insight as we went through that whole process so I just want to say thanks to staff for that. And then if there is any comments I’d like to be able to rebut along with my surveyor. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 29 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Very good. Again certainly we’d welcome public comments at this time. Residents or other interested parties who’d like to come forward and address matters to the council, they’re certainly welcome. We have reviewed the Planning Commission minutes here and are aware of those issues raised there but certainly people are welcome to come forward at this time. Please come to the podium and state your name and address. No? Okay, very good. We’ll bring it back to council then for discussion and comments. Councilman Peterson: Seems reasonable. Let’s move ahead. Mayor Furlong: Okay. With regard to condition number 25 that I think was added as part of the Planning Commission. Ms. Aanenson, perhaps that’s the place with regard to safety issues or turn around accessibility. Is there something you wanted, or is there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess you can even add it onto condition number 26. If you look up on Lot area 3, there is no commonality of that driveway. 30 foot right-of-way. 20 foot paved surface. Based on that they could take, put some additional and not, and still stay within that 15,000 square foot minimum so I guess I would recommend that we add a condition that a common driveway be extended to that lot. Mayor Furlong: By common driveway, a private street? Kate Aanenson: Private street, correct. That would provide a back up and that would still meet the minimum square footage. Whatever that portion may be. 10-15 feet. Mayor Furlong: To provide turn around access. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: What’s the chances that condition number 25 becomes a cul-de-sac? Kate Aanenson: Well, by approving this site plan you’ve eliminated the cul-de-sac. I think again that was raised at the Planning Commission regarding the amount of traffic on Minnewashta Parkway, which is a heavily used trail. Just concerning the good sight lines and I think we went through that regarding. I’m not sure, and the City Engineer had discussed this too, whether the cul-de-sac with the wider opening, does that provide any additional parking? Maybe not. And we believe there’s good sight lines coming out. Right now there’s 2 driveways onto Minnewashta Parkway where this is now there’s just one control point. So you’re adding, and there is one existing home. You’re just putting in 2 additional so the Planning Commission and Assistant City Engineer felt that that… Councilman Lundquist: With the turn around, I mean realistically are you going to get a private street in there that you can turn a delivery vehicle or other? Kate Aanenson: At 20 foot of pavement, I believe so. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 30 Mayor Furlong: I guess that’s the thing. If you build a hammer head with part of it going into Lot 3. Paul Oehme: You need a hammer head to turn a vehicle around. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and there’s a lot of area between those that we could accommodate that. Mayor Furlong: The issue I’m dealing with is one to avoid conflicts between neighbors. With people backing into Lot 3 on the driveway and two, to make sure from a safety standpoint that cars are exiting going forward. That no delivery trucks are backing out onto Minnewashta. So those are my goals. How you accomplish those. Kate Aanenson: Right, so extend the private street such that there’s a back up area on Lot 3. Mayor Furlong: And if it’s paved the same width and is part of the private street into Lot 3, hopefully it will be viewed as usable by everybody too. Councilman Lundquist: And it wouldn’t be easier to just put a cul-de-sac in there? Kate Aanenson: Well you could. You could. You push the houses back further. So now you’re closer to those neighbors who’ve enjoyed the greater separation. You’ve lost more trees. And with the cul-de-sac, I’m not sure how much parking with their driveway locations, between the driveways that you’d get. Councilman Lundquist: Well you’re not going to get any parking either way. I mean realistically you’re not going to park in the cul-de-sac. They’re not going to park on the private street. Kate Aanenson: And it does push the, there’s additional grading then to push that cul-de-sac or that retaining wall there with the slopes. Paul Oehme: And the cul-de-sac is at a pretty significant grade too. The plan as shown here is at about 7%. It’s almost at our max grade too so. Kate Aanenson: And then the driveways would go up from that. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, I just want to make sure that we don’t create some ugly looking mess in there where you can’t get around. You can’t turn around. You’ve got all of that stuff going on. Mayor Furlong: Right. I think staff and the developer are capable of figuring out how to do that. I think extending the private street into Lot 3 accomplishes a few things. One it sets expectations for the future property owners as well as providing the safety in the access. The turn around. Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 31 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Maybe we can put an option together with the final plat showing how that turn around could exist without losing site coverage on Lot 2. Councilman Labatt: How did we deal with, Highlands of Bluff Creek? The old, we did a hammer head there. Kate Aanenson: Did a hammer head, that’s correct. Councilman Labatt: And we designed that hammer head so it would, a fire truck and ambulance. Kate Aanenson: Garbage truck. Councilman Labatt: So everyone… Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and that would be the intent here. Councilman Labatt: So let’s just apply the same standards as we did there to here. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah the key thing in this is to make sure that you don’t go over in the site coverage on Lot 2, right? So trying to find that blend between Lots 2 and 3 is going to be the, and dealing with a few grade issues in there too. Nothing an engineer can’t handle. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other discussion on this item? If not, is there a motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ll give it a shot. I make the motion City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hills for 3 lots and a variance to run a private street as shown on the plans received July 20, 2005, subject to the following conditions 1 through 25. Councilman Labatt: With the addition of 26? Mayor Furlong: Do you want to add 26? Which is what we were. What is the proposed language? Kate Aanenson: Provide adequate turn around on Lot 3. Mayor Furlong: For extending the private street. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Councilman Lundquist: Kind of say yeah, what she said. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, whatever… Mayor Furlong: And based upon the comments… Okay, very good. Thank you. Is there a second? City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 32 Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hills for 3 lots and a variance to run a private street as shown on the plans received July 20, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. b. Any preserved trees removed will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. In lieu of any land dedication, full park fees shall be collected at the time of platting. With the one existing home, the total park fee for Minnewashta Creek Hill will be $8,000. b. Additional trail construction is not required as a part of this project; however during demolition and construction, the existing pedestrian trail shall be protected and remain open. No construction equipment shall be parked on or use the trail as a staging area during construction. In addition, all match points encountered on the trail for demolition and/or construction shall be professionally constructed. 3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 4. The driveway grade must be adjusted so that runoff from the driveway will sheet drain to the east. The grades east of the proposed private drive must be adjusted to provide a drainage swale along the east side of the driveway to the proposed catch basin. 5. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 6. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 7. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 33 9. The developer shall also extend storm sewer from the existing storm sewer manhole within Minnewashta Parkway at the south end of the property. The upstream storm sewer structure shall have a catch basin cover and a three-foot sump. 10. The lateral sanitary sewer and watermain connections to the existing trunk utilities must be north of the proposed private drive. The developer shall extend 8-inch lateral sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (top elevation 951.23’). 11. A manhole must be installed wherever a bend is proposed in the sanitary sewer. Individual sanitary sewer services must be 6-inch diameter. 12. Six-inch lateral watermain shall be wet tapped from the existing trunk utility. 13. A gate valve must be installed immediately west of the wet tap. 14. A hydrant is required at the end of the proposed watermain for flushing purposes. 15. Additional drainage and utility easements may be required based on the revised utility plan. Easements shall be minimum 20-feet wide centered over each utility. 16. According to the City’s Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup, therefore sanitary sewer and water hookup charges must be paid for two lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 for water-main. 17. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 18. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 19. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 20. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 21. The driveway easement must clearly stipulate that the owners of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek Hill shall own and maintain the private drive and the private storm sewer north of the private driveway. The private street must be built to a 7-ton design, 20-foot width. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 22. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. The grading plan shall be revised to show silt fence down slope of all disturbed areas. Chanhassen’s standard detail for silt fence (Plate 5300) shall be included in the plans. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 34 b. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. c. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. d. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,355. e. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot and must have a separate connection to the public sewer or to a manhole which is connected to the public sewer. d. Curb box valves cannot be located in driveways. e. Permits are required for retaining walls. Walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer. f. The developer must submit a proposed name for the private drive. 24. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed private street will need a street name. Submit name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 35 d. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.” 25. The applicant will work with staff to address the issues of safety of the private street accessing onto Minnewashta Parkway, drainage towards the lake, and providing appropriate parking and turn around areas. 26. The applicant will extend the private street in order to provide an adequate turn around on Lot 3. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AWARD OF BID, LAKE SUSAN PARK PLAYGROUND. Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council. This morning we opened bids for the Lake Susan Park playground equipment. It’s the equipment portion only of the project. We had two qualified bidders. Flanagan Sales was the specified bidder and Midwest Playscapes was approved as an equal. The bid amount from Flanagan Sales was $64,951.58 and Midwest was higher at $69,979.02. Both bids were under the $77,500 budget allocated for equipment at this site, and it’s recommended that the City Council award the Lake Susan Park playground bid to Flanagan Sales, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota in the amount of $64,951.58. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions. Councilman Lundquist: Todd, as you’ve gone through the other playgrounds, we’ve done a great job of enlisting the neighborhoods in putting those up. Lake Ann doesn’t really have a neighborhood per se. Do we have any plans to get a group out there or any Eagle Scout projects or something like that coming up or is it, is it your intention to put these up using city staff? Todd Hoffman: With city staff. Lake Susan, early on in the process we solicited input and wanted to see if the neighborhood to the south would be interested. We didn’t have a lot of interest and so we decided that we would do the installation ourself. The playground, the existing playground at Lake Susan has been taken down. The concrete will be coming in in the next week and a half and then when this playground is ordered and delivered it will be delivered straight to the site and we’ll have it up in probably about a week’s time. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Overall with all the playgrounds being done, we just approved tonight on our consent agenda the refurbishing. Todd Hoffman: Carver Beach and Minnewashta. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, Carver Beach? City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 36 Todd Hoffman: Carver Beach and Minnewashta. Mayor Furlong: The improvements there. How are we doing on our overall budget with all of the projects? This one’s coming in under budget which is good. Todd Hoffman: We’re well under, which is good. We went in with some unknowns. Cost of the equipment through some bidding and then our concrete bids came in favorably. That was back in June so we’re well under. We’ll probably be in that, by under by some $50,000 but we’ll bring a complete report to the council this fall. Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Well I would concur with Councilman Lundquist with regard to the quality and success of the playgrounds so far so, and I’ve received a good solid, good compliments from residents on their pleasure as well, so congratulations. Good job. Todd Hoffman: Thank you. Good to hear it. Mayor Furlong: Bring it back to council for discussion. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council award the bid for the Lake Susan Park playground to Flanagan Sales, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota in the amount of $64,951.58. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson, you were out at the Chanhassen Day at the Arboretum on Friday. Councilman Peterson: Got there at 9:55 and 10:01 it started to rain. Hard. People dispersed quickly but I didn’t hear the final attendance. Kate, you or anybody here? Todd Gerhardt: No. Kate Aanenson: We’re evaluating our advertising on that. I don’t know if it was Friday, but we didn’t get quite the attendance we thought. It was a great day, after it quit raining. It warmed up nicely. The families that were out there really enjoyed it. Enjoyed the experience but we want to make sure we maybe advertise that a little bit better. Look at some other ways to get people out there. Experience it. City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005 37 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well we extend our thanks to the Arboretum. Peter Olin and his staff for their hospitality. Other council presentations? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Attended the ground breaking for 212. Pretty good attendance there. Had the Chaska Band. I don’t know if they call it the Minnesota Band or what but that was well attended. Had some kid activities going on. Senator Coleman was there and spoke. Lt. Governor Molnau was there and so it was a warm day. The program started at noon. Not 11:00 so we had to stand around a little longer than what we thought we would have to. Our Chanhassen Lion’s served popcorn and beverages there so nice to see representatives from our agencies or groups, civic groups here. And Representative Workman was recognized for his efforts when he was a Rep in our area and worked hard on trying to get 212 so that was nice to see. Mayor Furlong: Questions for Mr. Gerhardt. We also had on Saturday I believe the Miracles for Mitch Triathlon. Everything went well there I assume. Todd Hoffman: Yes it did. The largest kids triathlon in the nation that day. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. Todd Hoffman: About 750 registered. Councilman Labatt: Some great footage on Channel 11 news too. Todd Hoffman: …well attended. Very pleasant for them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the staff? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: There’s nothing else to come before the council this evening. We will continue our work session items that were not completed during our…work session immediately following this council meeting. That will be in the Fountain Room. Public of course is always welcome. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim EMERGENCY CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Council members Lundquist, Tjornhom and Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager; Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager; and Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator CONSIDER DESIGNATING LOTUS LAKE AS A SLOW/NO-WAKE ZONE: Lori Haak presented a staff report and resolution recommending that an emergency no- wake area be declared for Lotus Lake due to recent rainfall. Todd Gerhardt explained that enforcement would be conducted by the Carver County Sheriff’s Office and that it would be considered as a base level service under the contract. Councilman Lundquist asked how long this status would remain in place. Lori Haak explained that it would remain until the water level was below the ordinary high water mark for three consecutive days, which would probably be a week. Gerhardt then gave an update regarding storm issues throughout the community. A motion was made by Councilman Lundquist and seconded by Councilman Peterson to approve Resolution 2005-71 establishing an emergency no-wake area for Lotus Lake. All voted in favor and the motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Lundquist and seconded by Councilman Peterson to adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m. Prepared by: Justin Miller Assistant to the City Manager CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Deborah Zorn, Kurt Papke, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician; and Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT WALKWAY AND DOCK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6440 FOX PATH, MARIANNE McCORD & DAVID SANFORD, PLANNING CASE 05-22. Public Present: Name Address Marianne McCord and David Sanford 6440 Fox Path Tom Meier 695 Pleasant View Road Jahn Dyvik 610 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McDonald asked for clarification on the depth of the lake in this area, dredging of the channel and placement of the dock. Commissioner Larson asked for further clarification on placement of the dock. Commissioner Papke asked staff to explain what responsibility and authority the Planning Commission has in regards to the conservation easement and if there is precedence of the Planning Commission over riding a conservation easement in granting a dock like this. Chairman Sacchet asked why Lot 9 was not included in the community dock and clarification on the city and state regulations for docks. The applicant, David Sanford, 6440 Fox Path provided background information and his wife, Marianne McCord presented more detailed information of their request. Commissioner McDonald asked the applicants to explain what their understanding was when they purchased their home and their definition of open water. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Tom Meier, 695 Pleasant View Road provided historical background on this neighborhood having lived for 9 years at 6410 Fox Path, which is Lot 6, and now living Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 2 at the property with the dock directly adjacent to where this dock is proposed to go. He showed pictures and reviewed the letter he submitted to the commission stating his opposition to this request. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion the following motion was made. McDonald moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22 for a boardwalk across the wetlands at 6440 Fox Path, based upon the Findings of Fact in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R, SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 138 TOWNHOUSES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1500 PIONEER TRAIL), LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-24. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Clark Town & Country Homes Rick Janssen Town & Country Homes Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Kate Aanenson presented the staff report, noting that staff is recommending tabling of this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification of the sight line elevations from the Peterson Bluff neighborhood stating a desire to better understand the transition process. Commissioner McDonald asked to see more clarification on the road system in the area. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on grading, retaining walls, housing types, access to the wetland mitigation areas, and tree inventory. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification of the parking plan. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development for Town and Country Homes introduced his team of Rick Janssen, Vice President of Acquisition and Ed Hasek, Senior Landscape Architect with Westwood Professional Services. He thanked city staff for their assistance and reviewed their proposal. Chairman Sacchet asked for a clearer understanding of why they were choosing to go with only one housing type and clarification of the X’s on the tree survey. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive asked why the item was noticed with variances when no variances were being requested and clarification of the difference between public street, private streets and private drives. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. The commission directed staff and the developer to address the items listed in the staff report along with the following items: show the location of the trail along Bluff Creek, look at the gathering areas to perhaps include playground equipment, look at an additional housing product, and additional off street parking. Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 3 Zorn moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision for the following reasons: 1. Allow staff the opportunity to work with the developer’s engineer to attempt to reduce the number and height of the proposed retaining walls; and 2. Significant changes to the grading plan that may result from #1 may change the site plan; and 3. Work to create greater neighborhood identity and housing design. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate the following conditions prior to the next submittal: Park and Recreation Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of this subdivision. 2. Additional pedestrian trails, sidewalks and trail connectors also need to be incorporated into the project as required. The planning and construction and financing of these pedestrian improvements are the responsibility of the applicant. The City will reimburse Town and Country Homes the cost of construction materials only for the ten-foot wide Bluff Creek trail. Water Resources Subdivision Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. The applicant shall work with staff to address comments on Liberty on Bluff Creek’s wetland mitigation that are received from the reviewing agencies. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek. 2. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 3. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 4. The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e. slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30 foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e. the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff). Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 4 5. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the primary corridor. No alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate alterations within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the area south of Bluff Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan. Special attention shall be paid to areas with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). 7. The applicant shall determine whether impacts are proposed within the mapped FEMA Unnumbered A Zone and shall either submit a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) showing that this area is not floodplain or obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within the floodplain if impacts are proposed. 8. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is needed for the development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City and the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD) for review prior to final approval. 9. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the proposed pond shall be shown on the plans. A typical detail shall be included with the plan. 10. The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all erosion controls and restoration practices. 11. Additional erosion control notes shall be provided on the plan to address the extension of storm sewer outside the perimeter controls; erosion control blanket shall be installed as needed in this area within 24 hours of storm sewer installation. 12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 5 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 14. The silt fence proposed for the north side of the property shall be moved to be consistent with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Grading Limit Line, as shown on Sheet 5 of 10. 15. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be used along curbs and installed within 24 hours of installation. 16. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy. 17. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion berms or ditches shall be used to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet should be installed. A detail shall be provided for the temporary pond outlet. Additional temporary sediment basins shall be constructed if necessary during construction. 18. The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be adjusted to discharge water parallel to the creek flow. The outlet shall be turned to the southeast to align with the creek. 19. Storm sewer plans shall be revised in two locations so storm sewer is not located beneath retaining walls. Plans for the storm sewer shall be submitted. 20. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigations areas, buffer areas used as Public Value Credit (PVC) and storm water ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be shown on the plan. 21. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plan recording, is $221,678.00. 22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. Forestry Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation. 2. Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both wetland mitigation areas. Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 6 3. A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area. This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either side of the access lane. 4. Additional landscaping will be required behind the units on Lot 7, Block 1 to increase privacy and minimize headlight glare. A minimum of 6 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be strategically located behind the units. 5. A walk through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. Fire Marshal Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from the site or chipped. 2. Temporary Street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 3. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 4. Fire apparatus access road and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Building Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 2. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 3. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 4. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names and an addressing plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 7 5. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. 6. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 7. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire resistive construction. 8. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 9. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R LOCATED AT 6560 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA CREEK HILLS, APPLICANT ROBERT RICK (FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TIM & MARY COLLERAN), PLANNING CASE NO. 05-25. Public Present: Name Address Steve Larson 3861 Leslee Curve Tim Colleran 6560 Minnewashta Parkway Kevin Mattson 8566 Drake Court Robert Rick 4700 Otter Lake Road, White Bear Lake Connie Villari 1257 Winslow, West St. Paul Mr. & Mrs. Gil Laurent 24760 Cedar Point Road Ruth Menten 6630 Minnewashta Parkway Mary Knutson Rogers 3851 Leslee Curve Julie Ann Terpstra 6581 Joshua Circle Marcia Ortner 3920 Linden Circle Michael J. Barnes 3840 Linden Circle Brian L. Windschitl 6591 Joshua Circle Jim Markham 6500 Kirkwood Circle Greg Greenwood 6501 Kirkwood Circle R.W. Hueffmeier 6551 Kirkwood Circle Anthony Farina 6590 Joshua Circle Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 8 Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McDonald asked for clarification on the grades and slope of the access to the site. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the right-of-way of Minnewashta Parkway and hard surface requirements. The applicant, Robert Rick stated that through the entire process they kept in mind trying to minimize the impact on the current lot. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. The owner, Tim Colleran stated his thanks to the neighbors for coming out in support of the development and that he was looking forward to their comments. Ruth Menten, 6630 Minnewashta Parkway, having lived on Minnewashta Parkway since the 1970’s, stated this house is a historical landmark and expressed concern with traffic coming out across the trail. Jim Markham, President of the Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association stated their beachlot is across the street from this property and right now the Colleran’s have access to an easement to walk across their beach. Their concern is if all 3 homes are now going to have that same easement. Sharmeen Al-Jaff stated in speaking with the City Attorney, he noted that the issue is a private matter between the homeowners association and the Colleran’s. Brian Windschitl, 6591 Joshua Circle questioned the accuracy of the tree survey, the number of trees being lost, and clarification of building height requirements. Anthony Farina, 6590 Joshua Circle asked what the neighbors are getting from this development. He had concern with tearing down a house built in the 1850’s and the height of the new homes being built. Commissioner Papke asked staff to comment on the historical status of the home. Sharmeen Al-Jaff stated it is not on the National Historical Registry. Larry Nelson, 3860 Linden Circle asked why Chanhassen doesn’t have a preservation association in the city and clarification of the beachlot issue. Mary Knutson Rogers, 3851 Leslee Curve questioned the width of the driveway. Ruth Menten reiterated her concern with sight lines coming out onto Minnewashta Parkway. Mike Barnes, 3840 Linden Circle expressed concern with drainage from the property. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive stated a concern with parking since you are not allowed to park on a private street and room for turning around. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive expressed concern with the height of homes that have been built in the city. Connie Villari with Cornerstone Land Surveying clarified that she’s a licensed surveyor and not an engineer. She addressed the issues of safe access to the property, drainage, private drive and turn around, and accuracy of the tree survey. Greg Greenwood, 6501 Kirkwood Circle expressed concern with parking and pedestrian safety. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion the following motion was made. McDonald moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hill for three lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received July 20, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. b. Any preserved trees removed will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Park and Recreation Conditions: Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 9 a. In lieu of any land dedication, full park fees shall be collected at the time of platting. With the one existing home, the total park fee for Minnewashta Creek Hill will be $8,000. b. Additional trail construction is not required as a part of this project; however during demolition and construction, the existing pedestrian trail shall be protected and remain open. No construction equipment shall be parked on or use the trail as a staging area during construction. In addition, all match points encountered on the trail for demolition and/or construction shall be professionally constructed. 3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 4. The driveway grade must be adjusted so that runoff from the driveway will sheet drain to the east. The grades east of the proposed private drive must be adjusted to provide a drainage swale along the east side of the driveway to the proposed catch basin. 5. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 6. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 7. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The developer shall also extend storm sewer from the existing storm sewer manhole within Minnewashta Parkway at the south end of the property. The upstream storm sewer structure shall have a catch basin cover and a three-foot sump. 10. The lateral sanitary sewer and watermain connections to the existing trunk utilities must be north of the proposed private drive. The developer shall extend 8-inch lateral sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (top elevation 951.23’). 11. A manhole must be installed wherever a bend is proposed in the sanitary sewer. Individual sanitary sewer services must be 6-inch diameter. 12. Six-inch lateral watermain shall be wet tapped from the existing trunk utility. 13. A gate valve must be installed immediately west of the wet tap. 14. A hydrant is required at the end of the proposed watermain for flushing purposes. Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 10 15. Additional drainage and utility easements may be required based on the revised utility plan. Easements shall be minimum 20-feet wide centered over each utility. 16. According to the City’s Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup, therefore sanitary sewer and water hookup charges must be paid for two lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 for water-main. 17. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 18. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 19. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 20. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 21. The driveway easement must clearly stipulate that the owners of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek Hill shall own and maintain the private drive and the private storm sewer north of the private driveway. The private street must be built to a 7-ton design, 20-foot width. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 22. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. The grading plan shall be revised to show silt fence down slope of all disturbed areas. Chanhassen’s standard detail for silt fence (Plate 5300) shall be included in the plans. b. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. c. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. d. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,355. Planning Commission Summary – August 2, 2005 11 e. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot and must have a separate connection to the public sewer or to a manhole which is connected to the public sewer. d. Curb box valves cannot be located in driveways. e. Permits are required for retaining walls. Walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer. f. The developer must submit a proposed name for the private drive. 24. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed private street will need a street name. Submit name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.” 25. The applicant will work with staff to address the issues of safety of the private street accessing onto Minnewashta Parkway, drainage towards the lake, and providing appropriate parking and turn around areas. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 19, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:30 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 2, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Deborah Zorn, Kurt Papke, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician; and Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT WALKWAY AND DOCK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6440 FOX PATH, MARIANNE McCORD & DAVID SANFORD, PLANNING CASE 05-22. Public Present: Name Address Marianne McCord and David Sanford 6440 Fox Path Tom Meier 695 Pleasant View Road Jahn Dyvik 610 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Lori. Questions from staff. Go ahead Jerry. McDonald: I’ve got a couple questions for you. You may or may not know the answers. At that end of the lake what’s the depth of the lake? Haak: Well I can only say with what we’ve seen and there have been other dock issues in that area. In the channel, that area of the lake, the center of that is about 4 feet deep max. Even out in that area, it is quite shallow and actually we saw the presence of floating bogs or actually sediment that was showing up at the surface in and amongst the aquatic vegetation so it is quite shallow. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 2 McDonald: Okay. One of the other things in your report was, you talk about I guess the existing docks. They dredge those channels out. How often is that dredged and who pays for it? Haak: Actually I’m not, I couldn’t state for certain that it was. I do know that there would probably need to be some dredging in order to accommodate this dock. But I think in the past they may or may not have been actually dredged. I’m not sure. There may be some people here tonight who can speak to that better. McDonald: And then the other thing you talk about is that, in putting the walkway and then the dock, you talk about the jog that’s going to have to be made in order to get, I guess to miss the existing dock there, the far western dock which is pretty much right on the border. Aren’t they going to have to go across the property of Lot 10 in order to get out there to make the jogs that you’re talking about? Haak: Yes. Actually that is. There’s a little bit of a discrepancy. There is a little bit of an uncertainty as to whether or not the applicant has the right to do that. Typically the interpretation that staff makes, and I believe the DNR makes is that you really don’t have a lot of property rights below the ordinary high water mark of your property simply because that’s where the DNR jurisdiction takes over. And that’s something we’d have to check with the attorney about. I haven’t actually asked that question but that is a point that would definitely have to be. McDonald: Okay, and then is that the same thing with Lot 8 because at that point if they now have property below the ordinary high water mark and they want to put a dock out, then we end up trying to put 3 docks in that particular area. Haak: Yes, that’s correct, and that’s one of the concerns. McDonald: And then we go down through and we have to cross over Lot 10, then Lot 10 which is governed by this common dock suddenly wouldn’t they have rights to this dock also or at least be able to say I want access to it by? Haak: And I don’t know the answer to that question. That’s something that we’d have to check with the attorney. McDonald: So we potentially could be opening up a can of worms there as to. Haak: Correct. McDonald: Now, you talk about in the beginning when all this was put together and the intents for Lots 1 through 9 as it was negotiated with the developer before any of this was cut out the developer agreed that Lots 1 through 9, as he put them together, would not have lake access. So all of that was put into the original agreement in order for him to get the development. Haak: Well it wasn’t stated that way. Lots 1 through 9 weren’t addressed really. Lots 7, 8 and 9 do have the conservation easement because the 900 elevation does cross those three additional properties but the only lots that were addressed specifically were Lots 10 through 19. So it Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 3 didn’t, it didn’t say that they didn’t have, you know it didn’t explain that they didn’t have dock rights but they were left out what appears to be intentionally. McDonald: So Lot 9 wasn’t discussed but your position would be that when the conservation easement was put in, that covers Lot 9 as far as… Haak: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Larson: Yeah, I’ve got one. Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: Can you point on your aerial view where the proposed dock would be? I was a little unclear as to where that was supposed to go. Haak: That would be the end of it. Larson: Okay. Would that be this permanent pier, whatever you want to call it, that would be there forever? Haak: Yes. Larson: And then there would be an additional dock added to that. Haak: It would depend on where the, in most cases when we make this recommendation you have the wetland that you’re crossing then you need to cross additional open water, so it may be the case that in this instance they would not need to cross additional open water so therefore there would not need to be a seasonal component to it. We just haven’t established that yet because we’re not exactly sure of where it would need to be aligned. Larson: I see. Okay. Haak: In order to get access to the lake. Larson: Okay. Papke: Two questions. Reading, it almost seems like a legal issue. Could you please explain what the responsibility and authority of the Planning Commission is in regards to the conservation easement. Now that easement is a legally binding document. I mean do we have the authority to over ride that with this wetland alteration permit? Where does our authority come in here exactly? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 4 Haak: Do you have any, okay. Aanenson: The conservation easement, as Lori indicated, was a condition of the original approval. All you can do is recommend to the City Council who would have the authority to remove that conservation easement. So the City Council would have to be the one, but you would make a recommendation. Papke: Okay. Okay, got it. The other question I have, is there a precedent for the Chanhassen Planning Commission of over riding such a conservation easement for the granting a dock like this? Haak: I’m not aware of any. Papke: So this would be the first time we would ever do something. Haak: Right. Typically when the city vacates conservation easements, it’s because there’s nothing to conserve any more. We’ve done it in instances, I know in Longacres as an example where the trees got cut down for some reason or another with the house building or the development or something like that. Papke: But specifically for the granting a dock like this, for the granting of that. Haak: Yeah, I’m not aware of any. Aanenson: The other point that I wanted to make is, again as Lori indicated is that there was a lot of history that went into the discussions of how to get those, so there was kind of a compromise. In order to get the dock there was conservation easements…discussion and we’re not, those notes in the file but not to the depth and breadth of really what all those negotiations, discussions were so going forward in time we’re trying to go back and kind of re-create what those discussions were. It’s our belief there was a strong purpose for putting that in place and that was strictly to limit the boats and the docks on the lake. Sacchet: A couple more questions. Is there any knowledge or wisdom why Lot 9 was not included in the community dock? We don’t know anything about that? Haak: No. It was, like I indicated earlier, it just wasn’t even brought up. Sacchet: Now obviously looking at the aerial photograph, there is no open water. I mean it’s all vegetation so they would have to be, the vegetation would have to be cut to make a water way. Haak: Potentially, and again the applicant, in my conservations with the applicant, the applicant is interested in extending the dock. They do believe, and I think they’ll share this in a minute, but that they can get a dock extended into the end. Sacchet: Of the existing water way there? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 5 Haak: Right. In order to gain access. Sacchet: So it would be minimizing the amount of. Haak: That’s correct. Sacchet: Now I don’t quite understand why Lot 8 keeps coming up. It seems like that one is quite a bit further removed from actually the water. Haak: In, this is actually a copy of the preliminary plat. This isn’t the actual recorded version but it does show documentation that the 896 point, well 896 contour, which is right here, does extend onto Lot 8. And based on the applicant’s most recent survey and the surveys of other properties in the area, it also appears that that hasn’t changed. That that is consistent, so there would be some shoreland frontage. Sacchet: That little corner would be sufficient to consider that that lot has riparian rights? Haak: Yes, because they can. This crazy little drawing is the illustration of the dock setback zone and how our code reads as far as interpreting dock setbacks. What the code says is you connect two points where the ordinary high water mark meets each property line and you connect those with a straight line, and then you draw at a 90 degree angle a 100 foot line, and then where those overlap on neighboring properties, you split the difference. So, and they have to meet a 10 foot setback from that. Following? It takes a couple times reading through it to get it. And it’s probably taken me the 5 years I’ve worked here to figure that out but, so that’s how this, which is called the extended lot line is derived and then the yellow as shown here is the dock setback zone. Sacchet: So the blue is actually Lot 8? Haak: The blue is actually Lot 8, so they would be able to, you know if there was a 10. Could you get me my scale please. The one line I didn’t put on here. I think this is 40. So if you look at a 10 foot setback here, there is actually about 10 feet right in the middle there that we would be talking about. Sacchet: But wouldn’t it come to a point further south? Haak: All you extend the lot lines are 100 feet though. So that’s all they have to meet the setback for. So as long as they meet the setback at that 100 foot mark, it’s fine. Which is why this dock, well actually this, why this extends past the green here. And it kind of jogs over is because they don’t have to meet the setback. Sacchet: So it has to be 10 foot from the green there at the 100 foot, and then basically it’s free for grabs? Haak: Yes. Yep. When I put these together it got a little shifty but I think this shows the idea. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 6 Sacchet: That’s good information. McDonald: Can I ask a follow up? Sacchet: Go ahead Jerry. Go. McDonald: On that particular one, didn’t you say earlier that anything below the ordinary high water mark on the State is considered the lake and no one’s really got rights within there. It’s the State. Haak: Except that the City has adopted this additional requirement of a setback. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Okay, well this is very helpful Lori. Thanks for explaining this. Any other questions? Thank you Lori. With that I’d like to invite the applicants to come forward and tell you your view. Tell us your view of what’s going on here. This looks like an interesting. Welcome. If you want to state your name and address for the record. David Sanford: Yes, I’m David Sanford and I live at 6440 Fox Path. I’m going to start off with some, a couple points to Lori’s presentation and then just some overview of kind of how this process started so there’s some background and my wife’s going to get into a little more detail to the specific points. You know first thing I think the absence of nothing written about Lots 8 and 9 does not assume anything. So nothing written does not make a point. There’s contradictory remarks on Lots 16. One is it had an independent dock and one is it doesn’t. It does not. 17, 18 and 19, 10 through 16 have the shared dock. I just want to clarify a couple points because that went back and forth. And I think that proves that some of the things that were written in that original thing had changed. And Lot 16 was one. But kind of some highlights. First, we bought our house in ’98 so well after the development of the project. There was no mention of any conservatory in our closing documents and we refinanced. Checked the title insurance. No mention of this conservatory in any of that. The goal of the conservatory is to protect the environment. We have done probably more than a lot of other folks in the conservatory nature. First, we use state approved and natural fertilizer. We do not use phosphorous based ones. We planted over 20 to 30 trees in different varieties in our yard and into the berm. We’ve reduced the turf in our yard by over 50% where many folks have extended turf against the conservatory option with no input from anyone out there. We’ve not used any sealant on our driveway to affect the environment. We don’t change our own oil on our property. And my wife’s an active participant in master gardeners in the Arboretum. When we first contacted Lori about this, it was actually in the purpose of offering our home to be, how to environmentally lakescape your property. So we’re very much into the conservation of our property. And the first purpose of calling this was not really to build a dock but to understand the rights are of some other docks that were built that were extended well beyond their original area, so it was more into understanding the purpose behind the lakes. We then asked in April, to Lori’s point, you know hey, why can everyone build a dock and seem to do whatever they want on the lake and we seem to have a lot of lakefront property. Lori very much encouraged us to pursue this issue. And so we’ve, you know we looked at that and we saw that a lot of people were changing the docks and Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 7 extensions. We discussed the impact of the environment on this end of the lake and Lori said at that time things were, I think the term we’ve kind of wrote down, were a bit fuzzy at this end of the lake. So we knew there was some challenges around it. Our original survey, as I think she showed getting to a point, which was an error. We actually have open water. In fact you know in reality I think 26 feet of open water we understand is required. We have about 100 feet of open water on our property. And then Lori strongly encouraged us to get a survey for our lot and actually indicated how beneficial to the city this would be to clear up many issues on this end of the lake, and some of the changes on that were specifically requested by Lori during our survey and then my wife is going to get into a little more detail. Marianne McCord: The map that we used, or that she used. If you could put up this map. Haak: Oh sure. Marianne McCord: It’s a little confusing because…he thought this was all vegetation but it’s water vegetation so depending on what time of the year you take the picture, sometimes it will look like open water. Sometimes it doesn’t. These right here are actually two lots, and so there’s open water for this in combination with the second one is about the same amount that we have open water. One of the other things that has been brought up was this part about 8. Well, there’s a open high water mark here and it goes this way but if you would just use the open water that we have on our lot, that’s Lot 8. So I’d like to go over…and I’m going to just address them very briefly. Again my husband talked about lake preservation and we very much want to go ahead and use the dock. It would be a very simple dock. We don’t want to, when we first moved there, these two docks right here were just a straight, long dock and that’s all we want. We feel that in a way our lot is being asked to do all the preservation at this end of the lake and then other lots don’t even have to follow the same things that we have to follow. We are good stewards of the land and we, again my husband spoke about the conservancy. Issue number two is reasonable access, and we are besides 9, we are the only ones who, Lot 9 is the only one that has the open water. Open water. These do too but then somehow in the original lot, or original surveys they went ahead and gave them dock use. If you go around the lake right here, we’re the only lot that doesn’t have either an access to a dock or a dock. Everybody else does. Encroachment into drainage swale and utilities. If my husband can pass this out. One of the reasons why we went ahead with the dock that we went with was because we talked to Lori and Don and they had initially said these things…and it saves us money anyway so we would be happy to do that. Four is dredging. I actually called Lori because we had 4 bids and during one of my calls somebody had stated that some people at the other end, my end of the lake were thinking about dredging and would I go in with them because it would spread the cost and it would be great, so I called Lori and I said well is this even possible. Can we do that as a conservation effort and you know what were the issues, so when we personally went down there, you can go back down to that part of the lake. We were down there with some friends and they have a boat, depth finder and it is 3 feet so we feel that shouldn’t be a problem right now with dredging. Again issue 5. 7 and 8 are part of the conservation effort but again they have no open water on their property. You also brought up something about in our area perhaps has there been a precedent with this. There’s been a precedent in our neighborhood. In this big code of how many inches Lori did you say, just hundreds of paper, we have a public trail and for 15 some years nobody did anything about it so all of a sudden we were going to lose that trail and we had Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 8 to go with the city. We went, we planned. There’s some people who wanted it. Some people who didn’t and they actually altered it from what the original documents were. So it was supposed to be 10 feet with so much easement and they went ahead and switched that. Again sticking with then finally with issue 6. Again the ordinary high water mark can only be an estimate on Lot 8 because they haven’t had that before, and this lot right here has changed the ordinary high water mark so you cannot take a point from here to here and know exactly where it is because it’s been changed. And our lot actually wouldn’t require an easement because if you follow, where’s your, you know with all the negatives… If you follow in here, Lot 8, yeah Lot 8, then we too can go off to this area and this then becomes our, kind of a variance so if you’re applying that rule over here, you then have to apply it over here and we have no problem cutting that and doing that. So I guess the part that we have a problem with and why I called Lori way back in April, and I had contacted her even 2-3 years ago, was that it didn’t seem that things were being fairly applied to my lot, the lot next to me and I just wanted to make sure that (a), I was conserving well by being a good steward of the lake, but also what they got to have, I can have. Sacchet: Thank you. Anything more Dave? David Sanford: One more point. You know as we went through this process, I think the other point that I want to make clear is, we worked closely with staff and had numerous meetings and literally encouraged. As a matter of fact during our survey process staff came out to ask for extra points on the survey that they wanted, which cost us about an extra $500 for our surveyors, and we were very much encouraged that this would be a supported thing, so quite frankly we were dismayed and a little bit surprised by the staff report, based upon the 4 months previous of our actions and working together. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions from the applicant? No? Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, you have one? Go ahead Jerry. McDonald: When you bought your house was it sold as having lakefront property? Marianne McCord: It said we did. It said that we didn’t have a dock. David Sanford: It said that we didn’t have access to the shared dock. We knew that and we knew we had lake view. We knew we had water. Marianne McCord: We knew we had water but again if you went back to the original lot on the survey, I don’t know where that one is. That one unfortunately showed us, and in fact that was 2 or 3 years ago I contacted Lori and at that time she was giving me that 26 feet, 10 feet on each side and a 6 foot dock and she said, well you know she was looking at it and I was looking at it, We thought it just came to a point when in reality it comes out like this. So we had more than 26 feet of open water and adjacent to a point so again I think the problem was, in the 80’s when it was extremely fuzzy, and we were working, until we figured out exactly what our survey is. And I was a little confused with that too because I think the survey is supposed to be legally binding. I mean you’re not supposed to switch it. It shouldn’t have been just…it should have shown that we had more. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 9 McDonald: Okay, so I’m understanding this about you keep mentioning open water. Where the 64 feet is at on this one where it shows the dock coming down, that would be open water so the boat would actually dock there and you wouldn’t have to go out beyond the dock next to it? Marianne McCord: Well what happened here was, again while we were going through the survey and costs, we realized that this next dock was less than 10 feet on what was considered our property line. So we were a little confused about that and again Lori, it was the 100 feet kind of thing like that. So depending on how we come up here, we could probably have done just parallel to that and now that we’ve heard concerns, we would bring it over to the ordinary high water. Bring it up to within 10 feet of what is considered our property line, and then bring it parallel over so it wouldn’t be 64 feet. It’d be much less. McDonald: Okay, and at that point would there be access problems between your dock and the dock next to it? Marianne McCord: No, we would try, well no because that wouldn’t be fair but no, we would go ahead and move it back over here. Then move it back up. Here’s where this comes in. Again the water actually comes down to about here. That’s this…and then we would just bring it up here and run it parallel. And we only want a very, very simple dock. Larson: Because it really does appear close. Marianne McCord: But these two docks are very close too, so it’s been done before. McDonald: Well if you bring your dock across, what impact does that have on Lot 10, which is the one next to you? Marianne McCord: Again we would be out, if you see the line right here…and survey and then if you go back to Lori’s, this part, it would have absolutely no impact. So regardless of which way you want to look at it, on that survey or… David Sanford: Lot 10 does…have access to the shared dock. Marianne McCord: Community dock. David Sanford: But we don’t believe that anything we do would cross into their property line… Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing so I’d like to open the hearing and invite anybody who would like to comment to this topic to come forward now and let us know what you have to say. If you would please state your name and address for the record please. Tom Meier: Good evening commissioners. I’m Tom Meier and I’m at 695 Fox Path. Or pardon me, Pleasant View. I used to live in Fox Path and I addressed a letter to the Planning Commission this week. We lived for 9 years ourselves at 6410 Fox Path which is Lot 6. From Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 10 1990 to 1999, and it was clear in our subdivision and it’s in the by-laws of the subdivision which are attached to Lori’s report that only Lots 10 through 19 had access to Lotus Lake. While Lots 2 through 9 had lake views, they were not and we were not allowed to directly access the lake. And the reason is, it’s a conservation easement which is a lot different than a utility drainage easement. We now live directly east of this property at 695 Pleasant View and I am the dock adjacent to where they’re proposing to go. And I had a number of points that I put in my letter. The first one, to reach open water in a straight line direction, while maintaining the city code dock setback requirements, which is a straight line to open water, and if you stay within the easements of this drawing, they will hit the shoreline. Because this, does this show up? This line, if you allow rights here, he also has the rights and their blue lines where it cross over the orange lines so you split the difference as was indicated. So they would then have to come out this direction. Here’s my dock over here. They’re proposing to come very close to my dock but you would in effect have to come this direction, but they’re crossing Lot 10 and Lot 10, it also has the same riparian rights which changes this line right here. You now have to get this ordinary high water mark to determine the riparian rights of Lot 10. So I believe Lot 10 riparian rights, the high water marks are about here and here, which means their line would look like this so they’d split this difference and they’d have to come in here and in here and somehow still cross this lot. And they are now intruding on the space of Lot 8, so if they’ve got a direction out of here somehow, because Lot 10 granted it or you did, they would just go onto the shoreline because the city code requires a straight line direction. This area by the way is very shallow. It’s 2 to 4 inches of water currently and if we don’t get rain it will dry up to a, it will completely dry up. There is no water typically in the area that they’re proposing and they want to extend their dock from their house, quite a ways behind their house. There will be 440 feet from their back yard to the end of my dock. And then to get to open water they would have to dredge from their dock around their dock to that channel which I just went through this to get a dredging permit, if you can get one. The DNR will probably will fight you and not grant you one but the minimum cost to get a dredger is $50,000 because it’s such a complicated process. This is considered protected environment but it’s contaminated soil. You have to remove it. You have to put it in an enclosed environment until it absolutely dries out. They have to mix it with good soil and re- process this and then haul it back to the earth and put it back in. It takes a year to do this and it’s a very involved process. There’s only one dredger around. That’s Minnetonka Dredging. I talked to him about it and it’s a very complicated process. But trying to get a DNR permit is almost next to impossible. That channel has been there for many, many years and it’s basically dredged out from boat traffic, not from any other kind of dredging so. Our, so your other neighbors are going to be adversely affected by their proposal, plus you’re going to set a precedent for the whole subdivision which allows everybody in that subdivision to go back to what you’re calling lake frontage. The reason 10 through 16 have a common shared dock is they’re all in wetlands and they’re all on vegetation. When you get to dock number, or Lot number 17, 18 and 19, they’re actually on the lake. They have pretty good lake frontage. But 10 through 16 have all kinds of vegetation and I’ve got pictures that I want to show you as well. They’re proposed extension by the way was within 8 feet of our dock because they failed to draw. There was a proposed drawing. My dock actually comes out to the end of this dock. It’s a U shaped dock and then there’s a platform, viewing platform that goes 8 foot out to that direction. So the way it was proposed to us, it’s too close. The channel is maintained by, with the weeds by myself. It gets complicated trying to get neighbors to share in these costs and I’m quite frankly not interested in partnerships or agreements. Our land is private. It’s separate from Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 11 the Fox Chase subdivision. The Fox Chase subdivision when it was established, ended up with this conservation district and that’s what is governing this whole discussion. And this conservation easement supercedes, again I want to reiterate, supercedes all riparian rights. There is a family, there’s a lot of wildlife down there. There’s a family of deer right where this dock is proposing to go through. There are, a lot of people don’t know it but there’s giant snapping turtles that live in that wetlands and they’re absolutely huge and there’s all kinds of birds and wildlife that live back there. And as far as the fish, in the spring that’s where the pickerel and the carp mate and it’s a quite active area. So you’d be going through and destroying a lot of the vegetation and lake, or what little water there is, and affecting the fish. In the spring, this is a view in front of my dock. And it’s very shallow. This is high water in the spring after all the rain, but there is mud where they would have to, this is not silt. This is actual mud that they would have to remove, which means they’d have to dredge. This is a little different angle of the same. There’s a thing on my dock, so looking to where they want to navigate, and again there’s 2 to 4 inches of water where you’re looking around that mud. This is what it looks like right now. Coming off the dock. They put a survey stake here next to my dock. And looking at it, it’s solid vegetation. There’s just a slight amount of open water but that will fill in with vegetation as well. Haak: Just for reference, that stake, if you could remove that last picture Tom real quick. That stake is where the McCord/Sanford property comes to a point. That appears to be where that stake is so. Tom Meier: What that stake represents is lakeshore. Okay? You have 3 different things. You’ve got lakeshore. You’ve got a wetland and you have this high water mark. So there’s 3 lines and the stake is where the lake actually starts. And the wetlands is back kind of in the middle and then there’s the high water mark, so high water mark is simply an elevation above sea level. It’s 896.3. These are just more shots at the end of the dock. Trying to show you the vegetation. I took this shot to show the water depth. We can, if you saw the picture up close, you can see into the water and how shallow it is. This is looking back from the end of the dock towards their house. Their house is back here. Again, that’s my dock. It’s 550 to 600 feet from the end of my dock to their back door. Marianne McCord: From that point it’s 466. It’s on the survey. Tom Meier: It’s where the dock would start and to their house. It’s further and then they still aren’t in open water and you can’t just go out there and turn your docks. The city code says you have to go in a straight line to open water. These are just more shots. I took these shots this morning so they’re quite current. Oh here’s, there’s the shot of the water depth. You can see again if you want to look at this up close you can see the bottom. It’s not very silty. It’s mucky. So a lot of people think you can just go in with an outboard and open that up but you can’t. It’s very, very dense. I looked up on the DNR site the definition of a conservation district and, easement I should say. And I’d like to read this paragraph. Conservation easement means a non-possessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations, the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic or open space values of real property. Assuring it’s availability for agricultural, forest, recreational or open space use. Protecting natural resources. Maintaining or enhancing air quality, water quality or Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 12 preserving the historical, architectural, archeological or cultural aspects of real property. Now holder means the government body empowered to hold the interest in the real property under the laws of the State, which is the City of Chanhassen and that’s stated in the agreement with the developer and the City. So you are the holder, not this commission but the City is the holder of this easement. And it’s there for conservation. And in the conservation it states that no dock, structure, building can be crossing through a conservation district. So again that supercedes. There was a question earlier about the judicial actions. Again this is looking at the main part of the code of the DNR and judicial actions is an action affecting the conservation easement may be brought by an owner of an interest in the real property burdened by the easement. A holder of the easement, which is the City. A person having a third party right of enforcement. A person authorized by other law. So it’s very narrow who can affect the changes on these kind of districts so being that there are no rights to the lake, being that the conservation easement disallows it and there is drainage and utility easements through the same area, it’s, it would adversely affect the laws. And I think that’s pretty much what I wanted to present. Any questions? Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing nobody, I’m closing this public hearing. Bring it back to commission for discussion and comments. You want to start Kurt? Papke: Sure. I’m adamantly opposed to this application. I think it’s bad for the lake. It’s bad for the neighbors and it puts the city on a very slippery slope, pun intended, in regards to making precedence with easements. The conservation easement is very black and white. It states it’s a perpetual conservation easement. Perpetual. Names Lot 7 through Lot 19 inclusive. Specifically prohibits docks and walkways. Alteration of vegetation in any manner or form. I think this one is about as cut and dry as it gets from my perspective. Sacchet: Okay. Thanks Kurt. Deborah. Zorn: While I feel for the homeowners and they feel like they’re the only home without a dock accessing the lake, I would have to say I would side with adhering with the conservation easement as well. Sacchet: Okay. McDonald: Well I believe you could put a dock in there that would not impact on the area. I have seen quite a few areas but the problem I have is the easement that was negotiated. That was part of the original development. It should have been on your title. If it’s not, I’m sorry but you know, whenever they do the searches, the easement should come up. That is a restriction on property use that is there. It is law. It follows the property and because of that I could not support it. There is just no way around it and if we start trying to do that, we’re opening up a big can of worms. Again this was negotiated several years ago as part of this development. Everyone was on notice. They understood what the conditions were and because of that I couldn’t support it. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Jerry. Debbie. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 13 Larson: Boy. I actually went out and looked at this on my kayak and I looked at the area and it is very shallow. However, in looking at the dock next door I’m seeing that he’s quite close to the line as well and he’s got a jog in his straight line and so there’s an issue here. I guess I wouldn’t be terribly opposed to having the dock just because it’s not going to make a huge difference compared to what’s already there. However, the conservation easement is pretty big and it’s very clear cut what it says that you’re not supposed to put anything on it. But my main issue is the fact that the developer didn’t put it in the original, you know he covered through Lot 10 and it was very clear that he intended possibly to have lake rights or dock rights for those lots and not your’s and it wasn’t lined, outlined in there that it was to include Lot 9 and it looks like perhaps it was, it was such a small portion at the time that he looked at it. As I say, I’m a little bit, I could go either way but leaning towards perhaps not allowing this to go through as well. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Debbie. Undestad: No comment. Sacchet: No comment? I do want to point out just two things. We heard from one resident speaking against it. We also got written comment from another resident that is supporting the applicant in putting the dock in. And then I further want to point out that this is a recommendation with City Council that ultimately City Council will make the final decision on this. Other than that I don’t really have any specific comments. I think it’s an unfortunate situation that in the original situation this was not considered, that there is water on that lot. It’s also unfortunate that the conservation easement apparently wasn’t discovered until quite far into this process because without the conservation easement it’d be clear that the lot has riparian rights, and obviously that came as a not very pleasant surprise for the applicant and all of a sudden there’s this conservation easement. But you made it very clear from staff’s side that the City Attorney stated distinctly that the conservation easement supercedes the riparian rights and I think that’s only the fulcrum of what we have in front of us here. So that’s my comments. With that somebody want to venture a motion please? McDonald: I’ll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22 for a boardwalk across the wetlands at 6440 Fox Path, based upon the Findings of Fact in the staff report. Sacchet: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Papke: Second. McDonald moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22 for a boardwalk across the wetlands at 6440 Fox Path, based upon the Findings of Fact in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: So this will go to council on August 22nd and I encourage you to present your case there and see what the situation will be. Thank you very much. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 14 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R, SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 138 TOWNHOUSES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1500 PIONEER TRAIL), LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-24. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Clark Town & Country Homes Rick Janssen Town & Country Homes Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Do we have questions from staff? No? Yes Kurt. Papke: Could you, I’m not quite sure I understand the sight lines from the Peterson Bluff properties. Just to the west and I guess to the south of here. I believe those are single family homes on the Peterson Bluff property. Aanenson: Yes. Papke: What are the elevations here? Are those single family people in Peterson Bluff going to be looking up? Down? What’s the topography across? Aanenson: I believe they’ll be looking up. If you’re on this side. Kevin Clark: I think they’re looking down. Actually if they keep that hill, that slope there. Remember how high it comes? Aanenson: Yeah. Kevin Clark: They fall down on the other side. It acts like a natural mound between us. Aanenson: Well it depends because you’re also, this is like I say a 75 foot change in grade from the back. If you go to the back of that tree line down to that last portion here, then we also have, we looked at that. We’ve got about 300-400 foot of separation based on the creek itself and the flood plain and the primary district so that’s the buffer. Papke: So we’ll have single family homes that look out on a slope of quads basically. Is that what we’re really talking about? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 15 Aanenson: Yeah, what you’d be seeing is this portion right here. You’d be seeing this portion here. The primary district. You can see this line so you’d be looking across here. And down here, yeah same thing. Probably pretty much that portion. And those are some of the areas we looked at talking about some of that public space. Some of that view shed because that’s you know, especially after we re-establish and we’re kind of excited about this bigger piece that we’re doing the re-establishing and taking out the crop land and doing the wetland banking and our Water Resource Coordinator’s met on site with the BWSR and worked through those issues and we’re excited to take that and make it a little amenity, which was the goal of this whole area. So there’s some new wildlife corridor to make it a plus, and incorporate that into this plan itself. I think that’s one of the missing elements. McDonald: Can I ask you a question about. Aanenson: Just, can I just, would you like to see an elevation change? When we come back with the next iteration we can show that. What you’d be looking at. Papke: Yeah. One of my main concerns here, every time we look at one of these developments we often too long, too often look at them in isolation, okay. And in this particular case we’re doing this whole AUAR so we have a holistic look here and I’d really like to understand you know what, I think the Peterson Bluffs development, they’re going to great lengths to put in nicer homes and I’m just concerned, are we transitioning? What are the sight lines? How are we handling that so I’d like to have a look at that. When we look at this the next go around I’d like to understand better what the transition process is from the Peterson Bluff’s property to this one. Aanenson: I think that’s a good point. Sacchet: Jerry. McDonald: Well the questions I’ve got, again the next time it come through I’d like to know more about these roads. The one to the north. What’s the impact on the property there? What are we looking as far as going in there for development? The one on the west, which then begins to impact I think the Peterson Bluff, how does that tie in with the plan that they gave us? Aanenson: It doesn’t tie into the Peterson Bluff. Actually there’s, if we can zoom in on this map. We’re meeting with a group of the property owners this week to finalize the road design and that’s part of what we’re doing on your work session, review all that. Presenting that to the City Council on their meeting on the 8th. Actually there will be a road that comes through here to provide access to that property, so these are completely disconnected, and that’s the difference on this piece. It’s really it’s own little island and while it’s topographically separated, we still would like Commissioner Papke said, you still want it to blend and how it, the views still, are they between the different properties. McDonald: Okay, because one of the other things I’d look at, we talk a lot about neighborhoods inner connecting and that’s been a real big discussion, so what you’re saying with Liberty. With Peterson’s Bluff, these are going to be isolated communities? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 16 Aanenson: No. This road will tie, the road between Liberty will tie in here. There will be a connection to this road at the round about. There’ll be a road here. What this board is only showing you is that collector road. There’s also the primary trail that’s kind of really the common thread of the whole thing is the trail that follows Bluff Creek and it goes underneath the creek itself. That…structure that we talked about at the last meeting. Similar to what we have on West 78th. So it has the trail underneath and that’s really the unifying theme is the creek itself, so no pun intended but all roads lead to Rome. So all the trails, all those connectivity things actually bring you back either to this or to the trail, so they have internal sidewalks and trails that bring you back to that point, as does Peterson. And to get you to the park, whether it’s underneath or via the street trails. McDonald: Okay, because I guess one of the problems I’m having, we did a big discussion last week about the round about and about under utilizing the round about, and it looks like this is an opportunity, maybe the road to the west could utilize that better. Aanenson: There will be a road that, as part of the AUAR that’s development driven. This is just showing the common east/west that will connect between this round about and tie back down onto Pioneer Trail, and that will be decided. Now conceptually, because we move the road, the Peterson plan doesn’t blend any of this yet because they had a different configuration. Also there’ll be another round about which we’re working, we met with the Degler’s today so somewhere in this area where the other round about is, depending on where the park lands and we’re still working through all that. So you’re right, and that was a comment that was made before. The more legs to that round about the better, and that’s the goal also to reduce those infrastructure points, and points of contact. McDonald: Okay because you know, it doesn’t seem to be to our advantage after going through all this to end up creating a spider web of roads. Aanenson: Right. Well the other, the recommendation we saw that tied in with this round about to go down to Pioneer. The other one was to go from this road up to Lyman, and that would be where the other round about lands and that’s where we’re still working with the property owners. So I didn’t want to put that on to confuse anybody else but those will be the other legs. McDonald: Okay, and all those are reasons again to kind of put this on hold then isn’t it? Aanenson: Well, obviously they can’t proceed until we order the road project. It’s land locked. I think they’re just trying to do their due diligence. Trying to stay on a time frame. Obviously we would like to see some of those, there’s some poor soils in here and do some winter construction. So the goal is to keep the road project on track and they’re trying to do a design. It’s kind of a chicken and egg. They can do design to get the round abouts in the correct places that match their development, so we’ve asked them to proceed with some projects so we can get the road designed that best meets all the property owners. Undestad: Mr. Chairman. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 17 Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead. Undestad: Just one quick question. Are there any other, you say you’re getting together property owners. Are any of them bringing in ideas at this point? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Sacchet: In terms of the grading. So it would definitely need some retaining walls but you want to minimize them? Aanenson: That’s correct. Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: 30 feet. Sacchet: That’s huge. Aanenson: Well you know when you turn it over to a homeowners association, you know that was our concern is long term. That’s a big liability for them to take on and. Sacchet: Then in terms of the housing types. I mean right now we have, according to the drawing we have a red version and a beige version. We’d like to have a distinct different, I mean do we have, do we give them some guidance or do we just send them off? Aanenson: Yep. Yeah, we met with the and they actually have hired an outside consultant and we’ve seen some of their early versions and we’re pleased we’re moving in a different direction. Sacchet: And we believe two types will be sufficient? Aanenson: That was our recommendation. They still want to have the one type so they’re up for the challenge to show you that they can make it, with different stylistic changes, that they can make that work. Sacchet: Then there was in the report there was an issue that kind of peaked my interest, is the access to the wetland mitigation areas, which are they on the other side of the creek? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: So they would have to come in from somewhere else. Aanenson: To get to this? Sacchet: Yeah. Aanenson: Was that one of the Water Resource’s comments? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 18 Sacchet: Well it said it’s unclear how the contractor will gain access to wetland mitigation areas. A temporary creek crossing may be needed unless access can be gained from the west or south. Aanenson: Correct, and they’re working on that. Ed Hasek: Just as a comment, we still maintain access to Pioneer Trail. If you look at the lower right hand corner, you can see there’s, we’ve got an access down there. Sacchet: Oh, that would still connect to. So you’re thinking to make a connection? Ed Hasek: ...remain there until the… Sacchet: Alright. Would that be using like the existing driveway type of thing? Okay. But it will be temporary in that sense. Ed Hasek: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: That’s Outlot A. Sacchet: And this is probably a question for the applicant. On the tree inventory it has notes and it says X to a lot of the trees. Do we know what the X means? Sort of specific, but it’s my interest in trees that are definitely. Well I’ll ask the applicant Kate. Aanenson: Are you on page 9? Sacchet: I’m on the big piece of paper. Aanenson: Aah. Well actually the submittal, originally there was some problems with the submittal so I don’t think that matches this. What’s in the text is correct. The Forester looking at that realized there were some problems with the numbers that were submitted with the plat, so the plat numbers I would ignore and go with the text in the report. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Alright. Aanenson: Those numbers are wrong in the plat and we caught it. Sacchet: I’ll ask the applicant anyhow when he comes up. Alright, thank you very much. Any other questions from staff? Kurt, you have one more? Papke: Just to make sure I’m reading the parking diagrams right. In our standards, design standards for this area we were looking for a little bit more variety in the parking. It looks like all of the parking right now is proposed to be on street with no. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 19 Aanenson: Or, yeah because it does have a longer driveway or it would be guest parking in the driveway. There is some guest parking if we look at this map. There is some here, and those are some of the changes through the design they would have to make. There’s limited. You can see with the retaining walls, there’s limited. Sacchet: That’s the only point place? Aanenson: Yes. So we talked about, they looked at this. What this becomes so we talked to them about that. Kind of the orientation and some of those tweaking. It just needs a little bit more work. Papke: And it looks like buildings 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9. There’s no parking right in the immediate vicinity there. Do we have any. On street parking. Aanenson: On street, yep. Papke: No, there’s no on street parking very close to. Are there any standards or codes that we have to follow that there has to be on street parking within a certain distance of the home or anything, or? Aanenson: There is a requirement for the guest parking. There is within the driveway that would meet that but obviously if you have additional, it would be more convenient to have it, and you’re talking about like in this area here or over here? Papke: Basically up in the upper right hand corner there. A little bit to your left. Right there. Those immediate 6 buildings. It looks like there’s no on street parking anywhere in front of those buildings at all. Aanenson: You’ll have to challenge that, yep. It’s going to go in the changes. Sacchet: Alright, thank you Kate. With that I’d like to invite the applicant. If you want to come forward and present additional highlights and context. Please state your name and address for the record. Kevin Clark: Good evening. Chair, other commissioners. My name’s Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development for Town and Country Homes. A K. Hovnanian Company. And also with me tonight is Rick Janssen, our V.P. of Acquisition and Ed Hasek, Senior Landscape Architect with Westwood Professional Services. Before you this evening is really our second proposal for the Liberty neighborhood located just east of the other community that’s being considered by the City, Liberty at Bluff Creek. This neighborhood proposes 138 townhomes in 4 and 6 unit building configurations. We have a few of these planned in the Liberty on Bluff Creek project as it’s noted. As mentioned by staff, we are in the process of creating additional elevations which we visited with Kate on earlier this week, and have also, as she mentioned, we’re working with a design consultant to put together a more, an elevated color palette. I think at this point we’re looking at anywhere from 3 to 4 different color variations for that sort of elements and materials with that also. We certainly want to make sure that this neighborhood is a step above and intend Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 20 to elevate our streetscape to accomplish that goal. We will be working with staff to put together a very attractive variety of elevations and color palettes. As Kate mentioned, understandably with the location of the main collector road having just recently been determined, as she mentioned there’s going to be a meeting scheduled for Thursday to share the final design with all interested parties. This has been an element that’s been moving in relationship to the whole area, and we’ve been working and very collaborative with staff and the other parties to move this process forward, not only from the prior to the AUAR and variety of meetings. I think we’re onto, this has to be just under our fifth or sixth meeting on the road in the last really less than 3 months. So there has been a lot of effort on all parties, ourselves included to make sure that we’re all planning and working in concert. But now with this information our team will be better prepared to address both the road access and the grading issues mentioned in the staff’s report. It is our objective to minimize the need for retaining walls, eliminate the condition of having buildings surrounded by roadways and other items mentioned in there. And restore the previously farmed areas and maximize the opportunity to focus as many homes as possible to take advantage of the surrounding views and natural amenities. I want to mention too that the product that we’re proposing with this type of construction within the medium density zoning area is probably the most adaptable to the grade to minimize the impact of any grading and yet with the grade, as Kate mentioned, we still will be challenged to not have some walls and in certain cases to have some that are going to be potentially tall. We are working to minimize that but that will be a condition or a challenge that we have and we’re ready for that to work with, but again this product because it has full basements, walkout capabilities and things like that to allow us to blend that with the environment much easier. We’ll also be planning a neighborhood gathering area to again take advantage of the beautiful surroundings. The creek. The hillside and the forest and create a neighborhood focal point for the site. Certainly the areas as Kate mentioned along this area are prime opportunities for us to create that focal point. At this point I kind of envisioned that will take the form of either a gazebo, as she mentioned, or a pergola. Something a little bit more you know of natural wood product fitting into that hillside. Benches, pedestrian connections. An area for that to fit together within there. This neighborhood is uniquely located as mentioned and because of it’s unique location, it’s not really identified with other areas and part of it’s identity is I think that. The fact that it has these view sheds of not only the woods, of the creek and the varying terrain as it looks out both to the south, to the west, back to the north. The future park up to the northwest. So a lot of that is the character and the interest that this community will make. Commissioner McDonald when you mentioned the road, because of the MnDot alignment, really that’s the only opportunity to have connectivity through this neighborhood is to provide roads, both at that northeast corner and then subsequently where it’s shown there on the east side of the project. And again we walked this well over a year ago and identified potential locations for this. In earlier discussions well over 2 years ago when we met we were discussing and seeing what the viability was of having a crossing and looking at how to get across the creek. And at that point it was determined that you know that area was maybe better served to leave in it’s natural state and then we are now working towards not only creating additional, improving the wetlands there, but also the restoration of that currently farmed area. So I guess, the fact that it’s uniquely located. This is not a drawback but rather a positive characteristic that will allow us to create a very private, quiet and attractive neighborhood. We understand that there are a number of items to be more thoroughly thought out and for those reasons make it impractical for you to take any action this evening. We are actively working with staff, as Kate mentioned, to address these issues and look forward to Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 21 returning to this forum in early September as I think you have a workshop at mid month, to complete the review. We agree with staff’s recommendations to the commission for the stated reasons and objectives in the report and I thank you for your consideration of our proposal. I look forward to coming back to you in early September and we can address any questions you may have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. Just quick question. From your, what you just presented I gather you’re looking at variation of elevation and colors. Not necessarily in housing types. Did I hear that right? Kevin Clark: Correct. Sacchet: So you’d, what’s your reasoning why you’d want to stay with one type of housing? I’d like to understand that a little better. Kevin Clark: Well probably part of it is the market and also the density in this area. The fact that then to try to introduce a second product in here to be able to market an additional product in this area would be a challenge. So we feel that this design for probably the primary reason, if we come in with a single level or something like that, then we’ll really be lending more towards a different zoning characteristic and we’re, as we started out looking at this we were looking at from a medium density standpoint and this product really lends itself most appropriately to that in this configuration and we figure with the different housing types or the different foundation types, having both full basements, walkout, daylight type situations, and then adding the punch of having a variety of elevations in the different color palettes, I think we’ll be able to not only meet but exceed the subdivision guidelines that were put together in the last 6 months. Sacchet: Okay. And then my detail question about the tree survey. The notes that say X. I don’t know whether we need the landscape specialist to explain that. I was just curious because I figure it said Note: X. It would be explained somewhere what X means but it was hiding. Kevin Clark: Just as a quick aside, while looking at that. I’m going to put this up. What this reflects is, there’s 276 parking spaces with 2 in the garage, 2 in the parking. And the driveway area and then there are 92 throughout the site on street parking and then there are 5 in more of an off street visitor parking area. So there is quite a bit of additional. We’re at about 2.5 plus parking areas. Sacchet: So from your experience you would say that is adequate? Kevin Clark: Certainly I think that this is something we’re going to be forced to come back and look at because they’re looking at doing some other adjustments in the site plan but I guess I just wanted to show that that isn’t something that was an over sight. That we are looking at that and we’ll look to improve that as we make adjustments to the plan based on the grading where the roads land and a variety of those other items that have come up in the staff report. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Well if we don’t know what the X means, just make sure we know what it means when it comes back. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 22 Ed Hasek: It means there…but we’ll get you a key. D by the way means diseased… Sacchet: I suspected that. Alright. Kevin Clark: All set? Sacchet: That’s it. Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anybody who’d like to address this item to come forward. State your name and address. Let us know what you have to hear. What we have to hear from you. What you have to say. Bear with me. It’s almost 3:00 in the morning for me. Anybody? No takers? Yes, Janet. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just had one question and it said in the front of the report and in the newspaper ad that there are variances and I don’t see any reference to variances in the report. So what are they? Sacchet: Is the variances addressed in the staff report? Aanenson: No they don’t. We notice it with variances just in case as we’re reviewing sometimes we may have missed it in the early review. When we publish it because as they’re developing the staff report we may find some. At this point we don’t believe there’s any variances. Sacchet: So at this point there are no variances. Janet Paulsen: No, but the report on the front says there’s variances so I was wondering what’s going on. Aanenson: I’ll correct that in the next review. Sacchet: Okay. Janet Paulsen: So there are no? Sacchet: There are not apparently. Janet Paulsen: Okay. And then on the developer’s report, I don’t have a page number but it’s talking about street, roadways and drives. I just had a question, it lists public street and private streets and private drives, so I didn’t know there were private drives. Is that a driveway? Is that what they mean by private drive? Sacchet: You want to address that? Sure, go ahead. Ed Hasek: We have private streets. The private street is the loop in the lower right hand corner built to public standard. But it’s private. There are 2 or 3. Public street. Or I’m sorry, public street. Private street. Private drive. Private drive, private drive, private drive. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 23 Sacchet: So you call those private drives because they’re like a driveway to a multiple unit. Yeah the reason, oh telephone. The reason why this was brought, we had some go around’s in the past trying to figure out what terminology we want to use and according to our city definition there is no such thing as a private drive. Aanenson: Just to be clear, that wasn’t the staff’s use of terminology. It was the applicant’s terminology and so… Sacchet: Yep. Yeah, we just got that clear, correct. Okay. Janet Paulsen: That’s all, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Want to address this item. Seeing nobody get up, I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for comment with a note that staff recommends tabling and the applicant seems to be in agreement with that. Is there any additional aspects we want to mention to give some guidance and direction? Papke: Yeah I have one. One other thing I’d, for staff to take a look at the next time we look at this and that’s where the trail will go through here. I couldn’t see it indicated on any of the drawings. Is it on this side? Is it on the other side of Bluff Creek? Because one of the important things in designing this parkway here will be what the views will be from the trail. So it would be good to have some idea of what, even if it’s tentative, where that trail might be and how that will fit in. You know what the people from the trail will see when they walk or ride their bicycle along there. Zorn: …to see perhaps this neighborhood gathering area might be a little bit more than a gazebo. Perhaps a playground or something a little more conducive for family living in your units. So just something to think about. Kevin Clark: Okay. Zorn: And I too would favor perhaps another product within this development for a different look. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Deborah. Any comments Mark? Undestad: I guess I’d look for a couple different products out there too from a variety side, or with facades, if you could change those a little bit. Then I always have this parking, street parking. I know in the first round we looked at changing driveways to try to get more of the parking off the streets and things and here we’ve pretty much got all the streets lined up with cars out there and I don’t know if that will ever be that way but if there was any possibility of getting some other parking areas or something in there to try to get some of these off the street. Sacchet: Thanks Mark. Debbie? No? Jerry? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 24 McDonald: Well I guess the biggest comment I’ve got, at this point there probably isn’t enough detail in it and part of what you’re going to do as far as coming up with planning but I do have concerns about the parking also, especially in certain areas. We discussed this before with the other development and I believe that you’ve found some good solutions for that. And my concern about parking is again when you have visitors. At certain times of the year or something, in a couple of those areas I don’t know where they’re going to park and you know we’re going to end up probably creating problems at other points so I would just say I’d like to see something that addresses that so that we don’t create problems within those particular areas. That’s probably, that’s all I’ve got. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think we pretty much covered all the things. I don’t have much to add so with that I’d like to ask for a motion. It’s on page 17. Zorn: I’d like to make a motion that the Planning Commission to recommend tabling the request for rezoning A2 to PUD-R, site plan review and subdivision for the following reasons, 1 through. Sacchet: As stated in the report. Zorn: As stated, yeah. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Larson: Second. Zorn moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision for the following reasons: 1. Allow staff the opportunity to work with the developer’s engineer to attempt to reduce the number and height of the proposed retaining walls; and 2. Significant changes to the grading plan that may result from #1 may change the site plan; and 3. Work to create greater neighborhood identity and housing design. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate the following conditions prior to the next submittal: Park and Recreation Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of this subdivision. 2. Additional pedestrian trails, sidewalks and trail connectors also need to be incorporated into the project as required. The planning and construction and financing of these pedestrian improvements are the responsibility of the applicant. The City will reimburse Town and Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 25 Country Homes the cost of construction materials only for the ten-foot wide Bluff Creek trail. Water Resources Subdivision Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. The applicant shall work with staff to address comments on Liberty on Bluff Creek’s wetland mitigation that are received from the reviewing agencies. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek. 2. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. 3. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 4. The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e. slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30 foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e. the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff). 5. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the primary corridor. No alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate alterations within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the area south of Bluff Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan. Special attention shall be paid to areas with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). 7. The applicant shall determine whether impacts are proposed within the mapped FEMA Unnumbered A Zone and shall either submit a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) showing that this area is not floodplain or obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within the floodplain if impacts are proposed. 8. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is needed for the development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City and the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD) for review prior to final approval. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 26 9. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the proposed pond shall be shown on the plans. A typical detail shall be included with the plan. 10. The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all erosion controls and restoration practices. 11. Additional erosion control notes shall be provided on the plan to address the extension of storm sewer outside the perimeter controls; erosion control blanket shall be installed as needed in this area within 24 hours of storm sewer installation. 12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 14. The silt fence proposed for the north side of the property shall be moved to be consistent with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Grading Limit Line, as shown on Sheet 5 of 10. 15. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be used along curbs and installed within 24 hours of installation. 16. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy. 17. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion berms or ditches shall be used to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet should be installed. A detail shall be provided for the temporary pond outlet. Additional temporary sediment basins shall be constructed if necessary during construction. 18. The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be adjusted to discharge water parallel to the creek flow. The outlet shall be turned to the southeast to align with the creek. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 27 19. Storm sewer plans shall be revised in two locations so storm sewer is not located beneath retaining walls. Plans for the storm sewer shall be submitted. 20. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigations areas, buffer areas used as Public Value Credit (PVC) and storm water ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be shown on the plan. 21. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plan recording, is $221,678.00. 22. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. Forestry Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation. 2. Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both wetland mitigation areas. 3. A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area. This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either side of the access lane. 4. Additional landscaping will be required behind the units on Lot 7, Block 1 to increase privacy and minimize headlight glare. A minimum of 6 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be strategically located behind the units. 5. A walk through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. Fire Marshal Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from the site or chipped. 2. Temporary Street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 28 3. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 4. Fire apparatus access road and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Building Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 2. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 3. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 4. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names and an addressing plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 5. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. 6. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 7. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire resistive construction. 8. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 9. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: You want to add something? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 29 Ed Hasek: A real quick question Mr. Chairman. You closed the public hearing. Is that going to re-open again when we bring it back? Sacchet: Yes. I will re-open again with, should we technically have left it open? Aanenson: That’s fine. Sacchet: Either way’s fine, right? Okay. Alright, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R LOCATED AT 6560 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA CREEK HILLS, APPLICANT ROBERT RICK (FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TIM & MARY COLLERAN), PLANNING CASE NO. 05-25. Public Present: Name Address Steve Larson 3861 Leslee Curve Tim Colleran 6560 Minnewashta Parkway Kevin Mattson 8566 Drake Court Robert Rick 4700 Otter Lake Road, White Bear Lake Connie Villari 1257 Winslow, West St. Paul Mr. & Mrs. Gil Laurent 24760 Cedar Point Road Ruth Menten 6630 Minnewashta Parkway Mary Knutson Rogers 3851 Leslee Curve Julie Ann Terpstra 6581 Joshua Circle Marcia Ortner 3920 Linden Circle Michael J. Barnes 3840 Linden Circle Brian L. Windschitl 6591 Joshua Circle Jim Markham 6500 Kirkwood Circle Greg Greenwood 6501 Kirkwood Circle R.W. Hueffmeier 6551 Kirkwood Circle Anthony Farina 6590 Joshua Circle Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Do we have questions for staff? Jerry. McDonald: I have a question. On the lot itself, where the private road is starting, right now there’s a retaining wall at that point that’s roughly 5 feet, 6 feet tall and you’ve got quite a variance there on the front. The whole thing is held back right now by a retaining wall. The road to come in there, is that going to go up on a grade or are we talking about leveling out all that area and bringing it down to street level? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 30 Al-Jaff: If we can, if I may ask Alyson to answer that question. Morris: The proposed grading plan which is shown Exhibit A, proposed layout, it does show that the retaining wall will remain at approximately a location they don’t shown. We can get some clarification where that, if that will change but just looking at this right now they’re showing that that will stay. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: That’s it? Okay. Question from staff. There is some discussion about right-of-way of Minnewashta Parkway so what I understand it’s not the same on the two sides of the road. There’s enough right-of-way that it’s not a concern, is that an accurate understanding? Al-Jaff: That’s an accurate understanding. Sacchet: Then, and you touched on, you make this correction about the hard surface coverage. So they’re currently at the 25%, which is the maximum they can be with this drawing. Al-Jaff: Well and that’s what we asked them to show us. Show us what you can get with a 25% hard surface and that’s what they came back with. Sacchet: So they’re trying to fit in to that. And then the driveway, the setback. So we’re actually telling them they should be closer to the private road. Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: And the reason is that there would be less impervious or. Al-Jaff: That would be an option, yes. I mean there would be. Sacchet: Because I’m just trying to understand why we would require that, yes. Al-Jaff: Well it’s an option. Right now when they drew these plans they were assuming that the required setback is 30 feet from the edge of the. Sacchet: So 20 would help them. Al-Jaff: Would definitely help them. Sacchet: Thank you. That’s the questions I have. That’s it for questions? Alright. Thank you Sharmeen. With that I’d like to invite the applicant. Do we have an applicant here? If you want to come forward and just tell us if you have anything to add. You may want to move the microphone towards you please. State your name and address for the record. Robert Rick: My name is Robert Rick. I live at 4700 Otter Lake Road in White Bear Lake, Minnesota. First of all I’d like to thank staff. It was a pretty good process to start off and work Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 31 through things and tried to keep in mind staff’s wishes as best we could. I really only have a couple things to add, and the entire process was with kept in mind trying to minimize the impact on the current lot so, and we did, you know I think we came up with a fairly good game plan. The reason we do not have finished drawings, finished concepts, the type of builders that I’ll be working with on this development, they’re design build architects and so they’ll bring a client who would like a specific type of home. Sacchet: To be custom type? Robert Rick: To be custom. These are going to be 3 custom home sites. I’ll name a few names of folks that I’m actually working with who have potential interest in this. Delahay Homes. Peter Bren. TJB. Keith Waters. Marquette and Lee. Charles Cudd. These are luxury tour home names. Pretty well known. Very well known for you know blending in with communities. Improving communities so that’s in keeping with what we’re trying to do, so obviously trying to enhance the value of the property in the neighborhood. I think that’s it. I just want to reserve the right to be able to answer questions along with my engineer Connie Villari as well… Sacchet: It’s interesting you mention custom home. You’re comfortable with that restriction that was just pointed out with the middle lot, having kind of a small pad to work with. You don’t think that’s going to cause an issue? Robert Rick: It actually you know small, 2,000 square foot is not… Sacchet: It’s not teeny yeah, but. Robert Rick: And it will lend itself, the middle one to more of a villa type home is what the upper end folks would call it, but it’s certainly fair enough size yet. And staff had mentioned if you pull the house forward, you do gain some area there. And again you know, most of these, I don’t know this again because I don’t have customers in hand, will be multi story. They’re going to be 2 or 3 stories so 5,000 square foot home is not a little home so. Sacchet: Right. Alright, do we have any other questions from the applicant? No? Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody would like to come forward and address this proposal that’s in front of us here, this is your chance. Please come forward. State your name and address. Let us know what you have to say. Tim Colleran: My name is Tim Colleran. I’m the current owner at 6560 Minnewashta Parkway and I just wanted to thank all the neighbors for coming out in support of the development and I look forward to all your comments and we’ll see you at the beach. Sacchet: Any other comments to this? Yes. Ruth Menten: My name is Ruth Menten. I live at 6630 Minnewashta Parkway. We’ve lived on Minnewashta Parkway since, in the 1970’s. This house has been a landmark house. I thought that it was a historical, historically registered house. I’m not sure. It’s going to be a sad day to watch that house go down if this gets approved. One concern I have is the traffic that will be Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 32 coming out across the trail. Most of our houses are private lots. We have one exit out onto the parkway and since we added the walkway or the trail it’s got more people walking, bicycles and all that kind of thing. This is going to have 3 homes coming out onto one driveway which is going to be a road I guess. And it’s a blind sight because the walls, retaining walls go up quite high and so I’m a little concerned about the traffic issue and the pedestrian issue. Sacchet: Okay. Is that something, you’re our new city engineer. I haven’t met you yet. Hi. Would you want to say something to that please? Morris: This site is adding 2 single family homes to the site. You look at the amount of traffic entering and exiting this private drive and it’s not a significant amount. The driveway grade, as shown on the plans will be 10% maximum which is according to city code so that’s also to make sure that there’s adequate sight distance for them to see any pedestrians coming through there. McDonald: Can I ask a question because that’s my concern when I was asking about you know where this is at. You’re creating a canyon. That’s what I don’t understand on this driveway. It’s a very good point. As you come down, you’re talking about taking out the retaining wall there and at that point it’s got to be 5 feet high. Morris: No, the retaining wall will remain. McDonald: But you’re going to take out part of it to put the new private street in. The current driveway follows the lot line to the west, so that driveway is going away. Now you’re going to create a new driveway towards the middle of the lot and there’s a retaining wall there. So the driveway’s going to have to go through a retaining wall. Sacchet: Isn’t it close to where the old one was? McDonald: No. I went out there and looked and you look at the drawings where the current driveway, where the circular driveway is and the one there to the west follows the lot line. Sacchet: Do you want to come forward? Robert Rick: The new private street is going to follow the path of the current driveway. McDonald: But that’s not what’s shown in this drawing because according to where the driveway’s at now in the documents, it follows the lot line and comes off. Sacchet: It’s the lot line of the middle one…so it’s the lot line of the middle lot that it follows, not the edge one. McDonald: Okay. Okay, so it would follow the current driveway. Robert Rick: Yeah, and basically what we’re going to actually do is probably again to minimize impact to the current one, we’ll probably pull up the far end of the driveway but vegetate in that area. Not necessarily destroy the retaining wall that leads down towards the path there. Just Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 33 block the entrance. And actually we use the south entrance on staff recommendation. Naturally it started from the north, so thinking that we were pulling away from the right-of-way on, I’m not sure of the name of the street there but. McDonald: Okay, well at least that driveway that does alleviate the problems of sight lines and everything so, okay. Thanks. Sacchet: Okay? Public hearing is still open. If somebody else wants to come forward, please do so. Jim Markham: Hi. My name is Jim Markham. I’m the President of the Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Association. We have an association that is to the, would be the north side of the Colleran’s home and we, our concern is our beachlot which is across the street. Right now they have access to easement of walking across our beach and what our concern is that, are they going to have all 3 homes going to have that access or not. We right now feel that we have too many people already in our beach and we really don’t want to have that. We have taken a vote and decided that we did not want to have them come into our homeowners association so that they could use our beach, but they do have, the one home, the Colleran’s home does have access to cross our beach and we’re just concerned that all, they’re going to get 3 homes now having that. That’s our concern why we’re here. Sacchet: Yeah, I don’t think that’s something that is addressed by the staff report. Is that something you want to say? Al-Jaff: We have spoken to the city attorney regarding this issue and he has repeatedly said that it’s a private matter. There are by-laws to homeowners association. We do not enforce them. Private covenances are private covenances. Sacchet: It’s up to the homeowners association. Jim Markham: So they would have to come to us to get 2 more easements is what you’re saying? If 3 homes are allowed on that lot, that you’re saying that 1 has easement right now and the other 2 would have to come to get permission to come across our beachlot? Aanenson: Again it’s a private matter. We’re not commenting on it either way. Jim Markham: Okay. So this is something that we’ll have to take up with, in a private situation with them. Aanenson: That’s correct. Jim Markham: Okay. Well that’s why we’re here. That’s our concern. Sacchet: Okay, understand. Sorry we can’t help you with that one. Anybody else wants to address this item? Yeah, looks like we have more. Please come forward. State your name and address please. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 34 Brian Windschitl: My name is Brian Windschitl. I live at 6591 Joshua Circle, which is, covers probably 2/3 of the back side of this property. I don’t know how accurate of a tree survey we’ve done on there. I don’t know anybody’s looking at it but they seem to have the trees all placed away from these little boxes that are here but my concern is what’s going to be left of that when the custom homes come in. They’re not going to be a little square box like that. A lot of these trees, you just drive on the drip line and they’ll be dead a year later. They’ll say they’re not going to take them down but by the time they get all the work done around there, they’ll be losing those and. And then the other concern I have is, I’m sure you have height requirements. Right now I can sit on my deck and see the lake. When you fill that in with 3 homes, I mean I’ll be looking at people’s back yards with no trees in them, so I guess I would like you to maybe take a look at that out there and see if that tree survey is accurate you know, because there’s 150 year old trees there that can’t be replaced so. Sacchet: Right. Do you want to address that Sharmeen? Al-Jaff: Sure. We did go out to the site verified the location of the trees as far as what is shown on the plans and what will be preserved. Typically prior to any grading taking place on the site, we make sure that tree preservation fences are up. Sacchet: In terms of the size of the building pads, how much flexibility does a builder have? Al-Jaff: Remember the 25% hard surface coverage with these sites. So it’s to your advantage to stay as close as possible to this front portion of the lot. We had highlighted all the significant trees. We highlighted all the significant trees. The majority of the area right here really is open. It does not contain that many trees. They are closer in this portion of the site as well as around the parameter. There will be. Sacchet: About half a dozen. Al-Jaff: 5 tree, 6 trees that will come out with this building and 2 trees that will come out with that. Sacchet: So that is pretty reliable and has been verified. Brian Windschitl: Well my question is, is how accurate is that tree survey? I’ve lived there 26 years. I don’t see that tree in that bottom left hand corner. So I guess the question is, are they survey trees or that somebody just kind of scribbled them in there? Al-Jaff: No, they’re surveyed trees. Tim Colleran: I can name them…There’s Alfred and Betty and Charlie. Sacchet: Yeah, I mean obviously is it 100% accurate? Probably a slip here and there. But generally they’re actually pretty good those tree surveys from my experience. And ultimately what Sharmeen also pointed out is that when before any cutting and grading starts, staff will go Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 35 out there, the city forester will go out there and actually deal with it on site specifically making an effort to preserve and then put the protective fencing up and all that. That’s the city forester is somebody who knows how close you can go without damaging. Al-Jaff: Also it’s not to the owner’s benefit to lose any trees because at this point if they said they are going to save these trees, every time they lose them they have to replace them with double the inches. Sacchet: Okay. So there’s a penalty in the mitigation. How about the height? You addressed the height. Al-Jaff: Maximum height of a building cannot exceed 35 feet. Sacchet: 35 feet max. Al-Jaff: From the shoreland management as well as in the residential single family district. Sacchet: So that’s something that’s regulated. Brian Windschitl: 35 feet is the highest point, meaning… Al-Jaff: At the mid-point. Brian Windschitl: Mid point? Sacchet: Like if you have an angle with the middle of the slope. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. Thank you Sharmeen for addressing that. I hope that answers at least somewhat what your question is. Brian Windschitl: Well I guess my only question, we’re looking for approval here tonight with some boxes there you know. What, at what point keeps them from coming way back? How far back from the access is the setbacks? Sacchet: Well, they’re very limited. It’s my understanding through that 25% hard coverage requirement. We didn’t want to put a lot of driveway on there because then they won’t have any room for a house. Brian Windschitl: …30% instead of the 25%. Sacchet: No, that was actually what Sharmeen mentioned was a mistake on our part. Brian Windschitl: That was a mistake? Sacchet: Yes. It’s the 25 is actually accurate. Okay? So I think I wouldn’t be concerned that they get further in, unless they want to just put a little shed out there and then you can see around it. That’s to your advantage again too. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 36 Brian Windschitl: And side setbacks are 10 feet now? Sacchet: Yeah. Brian Windschitl: So basically… Aanenson: Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Yes. Aanenson: If I could have him come to the microphone. It’s very difficult. Sacchet: Yes, would you like to step up to the microphone once more if you have further questions because it’s hard to hear for everybody. Brian Windschitl: No, I’m good. Sacchet: You’re good. Alright. I think there was somebody else itching to get up before. Are you still itching to get up? Anthony Farina: My name’s Anthony Farina. I’m at 6590 Joshua Circle. I am not directly adjacent to the property. However standing in my back yard I can see the property. My question to the planning committee is, why do we have to do this? What do we get out of this? Obviously we know what the Colleran’s and the developers are getting out of this. Is a dollar sign. If you drive down Minnewashta Parkway, it is a park like atmosphere. Couple of the builders that the developer Rick had said are custom builders, yes. But there’s also a couple of them who have built several homes. What’s a custom builder? 100 homes? Or 5 homes? When you drive down that parkway… And standing in my back yard I’m going to have 3 towers, 35 feet high. There’s not one home in our neighborhood that’s 35 feet high to midpoint. Completely different than everything else that’s going to be there. And I would hate to see, like someone else stated, the nostalgic and the prestige of that area get thrown in with every other development type atmosphere that’s out there. And we see it every day. All the development in Chanhassen, everywhere around us, and that’s great. Population growth. We want that. Several different reasons. But you’re taking a house that’s been there since 1850 plus, and you’re going to make it into everything else and we don’t have much of that left in our neighborhoods. So I encourage you to think about that and realize that this is just not the 3 houses or the 1 property owner that’s affected. It’s every neighbor around there plus that whole parkway when we have families and guests coming down there and seeing all this going on and these towers of 5,000- 6,000 square feet. They are completely out of place. Thank you. Sacchet: Well what do we get out of this? Hopefully some friendly, lovely new neighbors right? Do you want to address that? Robert Rick: Yeah, I’d like to make. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 37 Sacchet: Well do you want to step forward, if you’ve got a comment. That way people can hear better. Robert Rick: I just want to make a statement that I think not more than 500 feet away from that is the Minnewashta Landings, Ken Durr’s development and there are homes there in excess of $3 million in value and probably 8,000 or 10,000 square feet so it’s, we may or may not, but it’s a stone throw away. It’s the first development as you come down south on Minnewashta Parkway off to the east. So it’s not unlike some homes in the very close proximity so. Sacchet: And I did want to make a comment to your question too, or to the point you made I should say. As I mentioned when I opened the meeting our task is to look at to what extent do the proposals that are brought before the city apply to the ordinances and regulations of the city. I mean in a crisp way I would answer your question, it’s the property owner’s right to use the property within the city’s regulations and as the proposal clearly states, it shows they are within the guidelines in terms of size of lot and so forth. We’re not looking at the specifics of the buildings. We’re looking at the subdivision part at this point and that simply is a landowner’s right to do that if the parcel is big enough. Did you want to add something? I saw you itching to try and get up once more or. Anthony Farina: And I understand that it’s the landowner’s right and the property and the development that they were talking about is I think uniquely designed because when you drive down Minnewashta Parkway, obviously in the middle of the winter when the leaves are off you notice that there are very large homes there. But in the summer, tree foliage, it’s difficult to see that unless you actually drive down that subdivision. Down that street. Lakeside’s a different story. You see those 3 story, 5 to 4 story homes without a doubt obviously in the middle of the lake. Here we’re all directly affected because we’re in our back yard. Okay. Everybody in the back yard of that neighborhood has the exact same home. Here also our beach is directly across from that too. So I understand that it’s the Colleran’s right to divide that, which they feel fits in the requirements. But to make it work and make it look like the rest of the homes, it just, I do. I don’t know the rest of them, I feel it’s going to be an eyesore, even though it’s going to be a beautiful custom 5,000 square foot home. To the neighborhood so. Sacchet: Well, we’ll have to be patient to see how it looks like, right? Anthony Farina: I mean it’s totally up in the air what exactly it’s going to look like. Sacchet: Right. At this point we’re not looking at that aspect. I mean you’re right about that. Yeah Kurt. Papke: Question for staff. Several homeowners have commented on the historical nature of the building. There was nothing in the staff report concerning that. Could you please clarify what the historical status of the building is. Al-Jaff: It is not on the historic registers listing. The home was built in the mid 1800’s and I’ve heard that, I have not been able to verify this but I’ve heard that it’s the second home in Carver County. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 38 Sacchet: So it does have significance from that angle, even though it’s not formalized. Yes please, you wanted to add something. The public hearing is still open. Larry Nelson: I’m 3860 Linden Circle and just an interest to me is that Chanhassen doesn’t have a preservation association. Kind of similar to other cities around the area like Victoria and Excelsior. Chaska. I don’t know if you can comment on that. Sacchet: Is it something you can something about Sharmeen? Larry Nelson: I don’t think that there’s anything in Chanhassen that has a chance to protect a home like this that has the history and. Sacchet: I think a home has to be on the historical register. It has to be registered. It has to be listed in order for it to be protected historically. Sacchet: Then it would apply… Larry Nelson: But I think in this situation as us as neighbors we don’t have somebody standing behind us, and of course I chose to live in the wonderful city of Chanhassen, which I love but if this was in Chaska we’d have somebody standing behind us. From their historical society from Carver. Sacchet: Even there I would think it would have to be registered on the historical register. Larry Nelson: So I’d just like to see you take on consideration that it is a pretty big landmark. One other question, just to verify the engineer seems to be mention that there were 2 houses. Or is there 3? Aanenson: 2 additional. Morris: 2 additional homes. Larry Nelson: 2 additional homes you said. Sacchet: Total of 3. Larry Nelson: Back to the lake rights. I’ve just been totally confused on what this all means with lake rights. They really have and where that’s going to continue from there. Where would we continue now? Everybody says it’s a private matter. Sacchet: Correct. That means we don’t intend to get involved from a city side with that. Larry Nelson: Okay, and what side would us, where, what side should we get involved with then? It’s a private matter but our association. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 39 Sacchet: Amongst the owners. Larry Nelson: But in the past I’m sure you’ve had a lot of experience with places being split, or places being developed like this where there’s 3, or 2 or 3 where there’s 1 piece of property that has lake rights. You must have some type of history and what has happened before with it. Do we? Sacchet: I wouldn’t know. Aanenson: We’ve done other ones in associations, yes. Larry Nelson: But the thing is, from my understanding, they’re not really a member of our association. Am I correct on this? You come up and help me with this… Aanenson: Again that is something we’re not going to, we’re silent on that matter. We’re not going to get into. Larry Nelson: No, no, but I’m just asking that you. McDonald: Well if I could address your question. Larry Nelson: Yes, thank you. McDonald: It’s a private matter. It’s a contract. It’s a contract issue. The city’s already said we have nothing to do with your contract. If you cannot negotiate it out between yourselves, your only recourse is to take it to court. It is not a city issue. It is a contract matter. So whatever your contract says, whatever the easements say, that’s what governs your negotiations. Larry Nelson: Are we satisfied with that? McDonald: Yeah, there’s nothing we can do and it’s not part of our charter to get into that. Larry Nelson: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you for your comments. Do you want to say something? Please. Mary Knutson Rogers: I’m Mary Knutson Rogers. I live at 3851 Leslee Curve. I just have a question to allow the south side, okay going here. The driveway, does that have to be widened in order for that developer to just have one car. Morris: Correct. I think it’s going up. They were proposing a 20 foot wide bituminous surface. I think the existing is somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 feet so it’d be widened by 8 feet. Mary Knutson Rogers: And then this home, what’s the distance there from the lot line? Morris: 10 feet. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 40 Mary Knutson Rogers: Just 10 feet. Aanenson: That’s the ordinance. Until you see a building permit we wouldn’t know for sure. I mean that’s what it has to be at a minimum. It could be more. Sacchet: Thank you. Ruth Menten: I’m back again. I would like you to really consider the safety of the cars. I know you said it’s only 2 lots going but in actuality it’s 3 lots that will be up there. And when there’s 2 average cars per family and that’s for people who are young and if you have families you know there’s teenagers that have, you have to have teenagers here. So let’s figure that 2 cars, that’s 6 cars coming out of that one driveway with a low vision. I don’t know if there’s some way you can take and get better vision. Put mirrors up or stop lights, I don’t know but it’s driving you know across the walkway and I just, the safety issue is a big thing for me. Sacchet: Is this a situation where mirrors are needed? Can you comment to that Alyson please. Morris: Based on going out to the site and looking at the sight distance, cars are safely exiting at that point already. It’s just a matter of driver caution going down there and having due care when they enter onto the street. It’s similar to, although you would have tree loss off the one private driveway there, it’s similar to single family lots exiting onto a street. It’s just simply a matter of driver care and attention. Sacchet: So you would think that common sense should be able to mitigate it sufficiently? You want to add something? Ruth Menten: I just wanted to add something. It also is on an incline. It isn’t flat like the piece of paper you’re looking at. We’re looking at an incline too so I just really want the council to consider the safety and the developer’s to consider the safety if this should go through. Sacchet: Okay. Good point. Finally we get to you. You’ve been going up and down a couple of times haven’t you. Mike Barnes: My name is Mike Barnes. I live at 3840 Linden Circle. I’m off on the north side of the property. And my concern has to do with the drainage. Is there a limitation on how much height can be added to the property. You know everything kind of tends to come between my house and both of my neighbors houses and I’m just somewhat concerned that with the new properties here that there will be more drainage coming down and that I might have flooding problems. Sacchet: Generally there should actually be less. Alyson, do you want to address that please. Morris: That’s correct, thank you Chair. The developer’s engineer was required to do a drainage analysis of this site. Minimal increase in peak discharge through the site. You’re the site directly north? Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 41 Mike Barnes: I’m the second one back. Morris: Okay. Mike Barnes: I would be this one. Morris: Okay. As far as increasing drainage, looking at where the proposed homes can be at this setback, it would not increase. The drainage pattern goes from the southwest, at the back of the lot that goes to the north and then it starts to spread out towards Lake Minnewashta. Looking out there you see where the high point is. It’s a gradual slope. They’re not proposing to change that area at the back. Mike Barnes: Yeah, I guess my concern is with the 3 homes there that it won’t flow towards the front anymore. Everything in the back that was flowing around will now flow off my way because my house is built on a hill, instead of coming down. So that’s just my concern with it. Morris: Again you look at, it depends on the pitch of the roof. The proposed house style. Position of eaves. We could ask the builder to be. Sacchet: Be sensitive. Morris: Very sensitive to that and look at placement of the eaves. Sacchet: Alright. Anybody else wants to address this item? Yep. Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen again. I just want to have, make a statement about private streets and especially this private street. I don’t know if you’re all aware you’re not allowed to park on a private street so the guests of these 3 homes cannot park there. And Lake Minnewashta Parkway, not allowed to park on either side of that so where are the people supposed to park? Aanenson: Sharmeen, you want to show them? Al-Jaff: They will be able to park within the driveway. There’s a turning lane here. You can have a couple of cars on there. Sacchet: Okay. So we believe that is sufficient parking space? Janet Paulsen: And sufficient for a fire truck? Sacchet: What happens with the fire truck? Al-Jaff: Our Fire Marshal did look at this and concluded that this is adequate for their purposes. Janet Paulsen: I have a private street next to me at the end of Laredo Drive and I watch my young neighbors struggle trying to turn around and have their delivery trucks turn around. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 42 Mostly they end up parking on the public street to do that. I think private streets require a variance because they do cause difficulties for the people living around them for parking. And for turning around. For turning around a boat trailer. Camping trailer, anything. And delivery trucks, I know lots of people living on private streets have complained about them. That their property is being, especially if they’re the last lot, to turn around. So it should be stated specifically that there’s a big enough turn around for all that. Not just a little back up space. Thank you. Sacchet: Good point. Thanks Janet. Janet Paulsen: Oh, and one more thing. Does this PUD require a 30 foot front yard? Do you know? Al-Jaff: We are requiring today’s standard be imposed on this portion of the Planned Unit Development. Majority of the homes have the 30% and so on and so forth. We’re requiring a 50 foot front yard setback. Janet Paulsen: Okay thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Jerry. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. I’m Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. There was concern expressed about blocking your view. Between the lake and the new houses. The housing regulation says the maximum height is what, 35 feet or? Sacchet: Correct. Jerry Paulsen: I can show you a house on Big Woods that’s 43 feet from ground to peak because the height of the house is based on a measurement of a gable height. So if you have a high pitched roof, in effect you can have more than a 35 feet. I can show you how… Sacchet: Yeah, I think that was actually clarified. That’s the mid point of the gable that we’re measuring, so you’re right. It could go to the tip of the gable could be higher. Any other comments? Otherwise I’ll close the public hearing. Yes. Yes, certainly you can do that. Absolutely. Connie Villari: My name is Connie Villari with Cornerstone Land Surveying and I’ve been referred to as the engineer but actually I’m a licensed surveyor, so just want to clarify that. And I’d like to take a few moments to answer some of your questions, specifically about the safety issue. One of the things that staff first commented on when we came to them discussing this lot was, if this is going to be subdivided they wanted to see one entrance rather than two which currently exist on the property. In the name of safety we took a look at both entrances. On the south side there’s only a retaining wall on the north end. If you take a look at this, there’s no retaining wall down here, so the sight is slightly, if it is, if you can call it an impairment, it would only be an impairment on the north side. Not on the south side. The other side, or on the other driveway…so that’s part of the reason why we chose that. We also chose the driveway that was Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 43 farthest away from Linden to keep a separation between the streets that are existing, to try to maintain as much safety as possible. So it’s one direction and I understand your concerns and perhaps we can take a look at that with the final design if we have a couple other changes. We’ll have the engineer review that specifically. Couple other questions were about the drainage. One of the things that we’re trying to do is maintain drainage towards the front between the houses so we’re trying to make sure that the water is traveling across a great deal of grassy area or vegetated area and we’re trying to keep that, keep swales between the houses and that sort of thing to minimize any impact that’s there. Again the rear of the lot, these are, it was difficult to design a plan for a development like this because they are going to be custom homes. It’s a lot easier to go into a site such as the one that was presented before this where you’re changing everything and you’re designing everything from scratch. We’re doing the best we can to fit in with the neighborhood that’s there. We’re trying to keep the grades as close to what’s naturally there now as possible. We’re trying to keep the street grades as close to the drive that is there now. However that appears to exceed the 10% slightly so we’re going to have to abide by city standards. So part of the impetus of keeping the houses back 30 feet is to maintain the grades that are existing as much as possible. Another question was about the private drive and access and turn around’s and one of the things we tried to do is provide a realistic image of what somebody would want a home to look like with a driveway. To get realistic numbers for our percentages. And we’ve shown turn around’s on both the north and the south house to kind of help those people back out of their driveways because it is an issue. And so we have talked about it so… The final design of the homes may be different but we’re trying to be realistic with our development calculations and so that’s why we’ve shown those on there. Trying to take that into consideration. I think I’ve tried to hit most of your questions. As far as accuracy of the tree survey, all the trees were located in the field. If there’s an extra one there, it was an oversight but they were verified by two people in the field so it would be an error and I will check on it and the person that was in charge of the survey. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good comments. McDonald: I’ve got a question. Sacchet: We’ll get to you in a second. McDonald: Excuse me, ma’am. Since you’re the engineer or surveyor, can you tell me how high is the current house? Connie Villari: The current house is at, let me just double check. It’s at about…and I can get another plan, but it’s shown here at 967.7. McDonald: No, I’m talking about from the ground up. You know we’ve had a lot of discussion about. Connie Villari: You know I’m not sure. That is not a measurement we did. Perhaps the homeowner has an idea. I’m not sure. Tim Colleran: It would just be a guess. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 44 McDonald: I’ll accept a guess. Tim Colleran: It’s a two story with a pitched roof. It’s tall. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Alright. There’s still somebody there. Greg Greenwood: I’m Greg Greenwood. I live at 6501 Kirkwood Circle. I’m not even close to their property but I live back in the association area. But my concern is, we, you’re going to move the houses 10 feet up now that they have that grade basically for, you know to make that 25% if I hear what you’re saying correctly. So shorten their driveways by 10 feet. That’s, we’re moving all the properties up where all the slab space is. Sacchet: Isn’t that drawing actually using 30? Al-Jaff: That’s not the reason why. They’re showing it at 30… Greg Greenwood: At 30 so they can move it up. So that sounds like they’re cutting off some of the driveway. Sacchet: That’s the idea. Greg Greenwood: Okay, so as part of the parking and turn around section that I’m kind of concerned about, is we walk down to the beach every day. Or every time we use it. There’s going to be that much more traffic if one of these guys has more than 2 people in their driveway, or 2 cars come to their house. So that’s going to be that much more traffic that they’re going to have to park on Linden Circle basically, up and down that road. And that’s going to increase the traffic and the amount of kids that are up there already too. I mean we’ve got people zooming through there that don’t live there as well, that don’t know that we have small kids and what not around there. Sacchet: So it’s about the safety, okay. Greg Greenwood; Yeah, big time. Okay, and we’ve got small kids that live right up on that corner that the people would turn around at. Sacchet: Appreciate your comment. Greg Greenwood: So thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? If not, I’m closing public hearing and bringing it back to the commission for comments and discussion. I’ll start on this end with Mark. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 45 Undestad: Well, I guess I mean your comment again, it’s, they get harder as they get into the neighborhoods here. It looks to me as if, I mean staff has worked with them. They’ve covered what’s required in their program there. I can see some of the concerns for the increased traffic on there. It sounds like Alyson has looked at that and it doesn’t seem to be an issue right now. I understand the numbers and the feelings out there but when it comes down to the requirements and meeting them, I guess it’s from my...around with the cul-de-sac up there, I think they’ve done a good job of changing the driveway around. It will save some more trees and move the buildings around and I understand, I think each individual home site would then come back, wouldn’t it prior to another, as they get. Would the homes come in or no? Aanenson: No. They would just come in for a building permit and then we’d review that. Sacchet: We wouldn’t see it. Aanenson: You wouldn’t see it. We would just internally check the building permit. Undestad: Okay. That’s it. Sacchet: Thanks Mark. Any comments Debbie? Larson: Well I’m quite familiar with the area because we have friends that are part of your association and invite us to the beach so I’ve been there on a few different occasions and I drive that street and I certainly understand your concerns about the additional traffic. However, typically when I come in on that road I come from 5 and houses that I see along the parkway seem very in line with what they’re planning on doing here so it’s kind of a continuation. It’s not necessarily changing, you know to me it’s lake view property, or so it appears anyhow. I don’t really have a problem with putting up beautiful homes in an area like that and I tend to support what they’re planning on doing. I think it’s a good improvement. It brings everybody up as far as their property values. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Jerry, any comments? McDonald: I’ve got a couple but yeah, when I first looked at this I made the mistake on the driveway. I was concerned about that too because what I was afraid we were going to create islands or blockage as far as getting in and out of the private drive. I like the private drive concept over the circle because you know after looking at it you would have had to have done quite a bit of work there which I think would have destroyed a lot of the property. Yeah, we’re having a problem. There are these lots around the city that are available for development and as long as they meet the code, I don’t see much choice but to grant them. And this particular development seems to have worked through all the problems. They’ve come through a couple solutions working with staff. Yeah, I would support this at this time. Sacchet: Deborah. Zorn: I would also support this. It’s difficult and concerning that it’s a beautiful house and that would be destroyed throughout this process. But it does meet all of the ordinances and the Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 46 couple concerns I do have would be the parking and the turn around on the private drive. And also that middle lot being at the 25% hard coverage surface right now, and this would be a later issue for whoever develops but there will be no space for any other type of landscaping or other things. So that issue will come, issue will come at a later time. So I would have to support this at this time. Sacchet: Thanks. Kurt. Papke: I find myself unusually conflicted over this one. I think the developer and the owner have done a great job of coloring within the lines. I think you’ve done a good job of preserving trees, which I normally support. But in this particular case I cannot be a party to demolishing the second oldest house in Carver County and so I intend to vote against this proposal. However I think this is a quasi judicial decision and I will not make a motion to deny the request and so I just suggest that someone else make a motion to approve it and I will simply be allowed to vote against it because I am ethically opposed to this. Sacchet: Well, I don’t have too much additional wisdom to add from what we’ve heard. I do think we touched on three very crucial aspects in all the comments and you well addressed it from the developer’s side. The safety of the access to the street. I think it’s definitely something I like to see the developer work with staff to do everything possible to put the most safe solution in there with that private street access onto that parkway. And it looks like you already did it. Make some efforts with that and maybe explore, make really sure you’ve exhausted all possibilities with that. Similar with the drainage concern that was brought up from the neighbor to the north. You already addressed that obviously trying to have the drainage patterns maintained. That it drains toward the lake but just put some extra attention on that as well. And then the parking and turn around space aspect to really, I actually would like to highlight those 3 items in a condition, something like applicant shall work with staff to put particular attention on those 3 aspects. I’m with you Kurt about this being the second oldest house in Carver County is a real shame to demolish it. However I don’t think we have any legal foundation whatsoever and to step into that space we have not, we don’t have jurisdiction. We don’t have a case per se. So other than knowing a little bit about it, I don’t think there’s much more I can do about it because it comes down to property owner’s rights which are very fundamentally entrenched in the Constitution of the United States…and all these wonderful things, but one thing that founders of this country particularly anchored in as well is the rights of property owners and so that’s in your hand as far as I see it. So with that I do have to state, as it was stated before, this is from the ordinance regulation from anyone in the city is a very clean proposal and the additional of the private road definitely preserves the significant, significantly larger part of nature than a public road would, so from what I consider our task as Planning Commission it seems a clear case that we need to support this. With that I’d like to have a motion. McDonald: I’ll do a motion. But before I do that, you had asked about adding some things. Sacchet: We can do friendly amendment. McDonald: Okay. I’ll make the motion that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hills for 3 lots and a variance to allow a Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 47 private street as shown on the plans received July the 20th and subject to conditions 1 through I believe 24. Sacchet: Yep. We have a motion. Is there a second? Larson: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion and a second. I’d like to propose a friendly amendment. That would be I guess number 25. Applicant shall work with staff to maximize safety aspects of the access of the private street onto Minnewashta Parkway. To minimize, how do we say that? To maximize drainage pattern be maintained flowing towards the lake, and putting special attention on parking and turn around space within those lots. Is that clear enough? Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. Is that acceptable Jerry? Since you’re the man with the motion. McDonald: Okay, and I have a question. Number 3, does that take care of what you want to do for drainage? Sacchet: Not fully. McDonald: Okay. I have no problems with it. That’s fine. Sacchet: Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment. McDonald moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-25 for Minnewashta Creek Hill for three lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received July 20, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be maintained until construction is completed. b. Any preserved trees removed will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 2. Park and Recreation Conditions: a. In lieu of any land dedication, full park fees shall be collected at the time of platting. With the one existing home, the total park fee for Minnewashta Creek Hill will be $8,000. b. Additional trail construction is not required as a part of this project; however during demolition and construction, the existing pedestrian trail shall be protected and remain open. No construction equipment shall be parked on or use the trail as a Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 48 staging area during construction. In addition, all match points encountered on the trail for demolition and/or construction shall be professionally constructed. 3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 4. The driveway grade must be adjusted so that runoff from the driveway will sheet drain to the east. The grades east of the proposed private drive must be adjusted to provide a drainage swale along the east side of the driveway to the proposed catch basin. 5. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 6. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 7. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The developer shall also extend storm sewer from the existing storm sewer manhole within Minnewashta Parkway at the south end of the property. The upstream storm sewer structure shall have a catch basin cover and a three-foot sump. 10. The lateral sanitary sewer and watermain connections to the existing trunk utilities must be north of the proposed private drive. The developer shall extend 8-inch lateral sanitary sewer from the existing manhole (top elevation 951.23’). 11. A manhole must be installed wherever a bend is proposed in the sanitary sewer. Individual sanitary sewer services must be 6-inch diameter. 12. Six-inch lateral watermain shall be wet tapped from the existing trunk utility. 13. A gate valve must be installed immediately west of the wet tap. 14. A hydrant is required at the end of the proposed watermain for flushing purposes. 15. Additional drainage and utility easements may be required based on the revised utility plan. Easements shall be minimum 20-feet wide centered over each utility. 16. According to the City’s Finance Department records, the parcel was previously assessed for one sanitary sewer and water hookup, therefore sanitary sewer and water hookup charges must be paid for two lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 for water-main. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 49 17. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 18. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat. 19. The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 20. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 21. The driveway easement must clearly stipulate that the owners of Lots 1-3, Block 1, Minnewashta Creek Hill shall own and maintain the private drive and the private storm sewer north of the private driveway. The private street must be built to a 7-ton design, 20-foot width. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 22. Water Resource Coordinator Conditions: a. The grading plan shall be revised to show silt fence down slope of all disturbed areas. Chanhassen’s standard detail for silt fence (Plate 5300) shall be included in the plans. b. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. c. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. d. The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $5,355. e. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies as necessary (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 23. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 50 b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot and must have a separate connection to the public sewer or to a manhole which is connected to the public sewer. d. Curb box valves cannot be located in driveways. e. Permits are required for retaining walls. Walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer. f. The developer must submit a proposed name for the private drive. 24. Fire Marshal Conditions: a. The new proposed private street will need a street name. Submit name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. b. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.” 25. The applicant will work with staff to address the issues of safety of the private street accessing onto Minnewashta Parkway, drainage towards the lake, and providing appropriate parking and turn around areas. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: So we have 5 to 1 and we already heard why you’re opposing. So this goes to City Council on the 22nd of August and there the decision will be made on this. Thank you very much. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 19, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:30 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 The Work Session began at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn and Mark Undestad. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Bob Generous, Lori Haak, Paul Oehme and Alyson Morris. PUBLIC PRESENT: None. UPDATE ON ROAD ISSUES City Engineer Paul Oehme reviewed the design and timeline for the TH 101 Gap project, 212/312, and the east/west collector roadway in the 2005 MUSA area. CITY TOUR Staff and the Commission toured the following sites within the City: · Park Nicollet Clinic · Villages on the Ponds · Lake Susan Park (dinner) · South on Highway 101 to look at 101 Gap project area, location of new 212/312, SouthWest Metro Transit Park and Ride, and the Sand Companies project. · Jeurissen property (Liberty at Creekside) · District 112 School site (Audubon/Lyman) · Lifetime Fitness The Work Session adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Director CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 23, 2005 Acting Chair Spizale called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Spizale, Tom Kelly, Kevin Dillon, and Paula Atkins MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Stolar, Steve Scharfenberg and Ann Murphy STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Kelly moved, Dillon seconded to approve the agenda amended to delete item 3, discussion of the off leash dog park, and adding under council presentations an update on the Miracles for Mitch Kids Triathlon. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dillon moved, Kelly seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 26, 2005 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 2006 PARK & TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item and reviewed the changes that had been made since the last meeting. Commissioner Atkins asked for clarification on the location of the performance stage in City Center Park and the money allocated for the off leash dog area. Dillon moved, Kelly seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the 2006-2010 Park & Trail Acquisition and Development CIP as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. DAVE HUFFMAN MEMORIAL 5K RACE REPORT. Jerry Ruegemer presented an update on this item. Commissioner Spizale suggested selling photos of people finishing the race as a revenue generator. FALL RECREATION PROGRAM REPORT. Jerry Ruegemer outlined programs being offer in the fall. Chanhassen Park and Rec Summary – August 23, 2005 2 COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Commissioner Kelly presented a report on the Miracles of Mitch Kids Triathlon. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. None. Commissioner Kelly asked for an update on the slide replacement at Meadow Green Park and the trail at Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail. Commissioner Dillon asked for background information on the trail on Lake Lucy Road. Dillon moved, Atkins seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2005 Acting Chair Spizale called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Spizale, Tom Kelly, Kevin Dillon, and Paula Atkins MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Stolar, Steve Scharfenberg and Ann Murphy STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Spizale: Does anybody have anything to add or delete? Hoffman: I do not. Somebody going to talk about the Miracles Race? Kelly: Sure, I can talk about it. Hoffman: Okay. Briefly under commission member presentations. Miracle Kids Triathlon. Largest kids triathlon in the country this year, so that’s a. Dillon: What? Hoffman: Largest kids triathlon in the country this year. Kelly: I guess it was on the, I know we’ll get to it but I guess it was on the 10:00 news on Channel 11. Hoffman: Beautiful. Spizale: The other thing, I don’t know if we should go ahead with it or delete it is the discussion on the off leash dog park with so few of us being here and Ann not being here. Ann’s got a lot of information on it. Maybe I’ll suggest that we’ll delete that one if that’s okay with everybody. Hoffman: You bet. Spizale: I’d really, we really want to get going on it. We’ve got a lot of stuff on it. Can we do that next meeting? Hoffman: Yep. We’ll table it til September and you should also prepare the commission to talk to the council at the next time, your September 12th joint meeting. Give you a chance to talk to them about you know your findings and what’s going on. New developments out at the regional Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 2 park. Shorewood has come forward with a $10,000 donation. Their council and their Shorewood park foundation. Not their park commission but a park foundation. But those, between the City of Chan and Shorewood, the only two cities that have come to the table so my recommendation is again we increase our, giving a dedication to $30,000 and then just allow the county to move forward. Spizale: That’s one of the things Ann and I discussed and I know she sent an e-mail out. I didn’t get a chance to read it but that was one of our, since we talked about, but it’d be really nice. I know she’s really like to be here to talk about it too so. Hoffman: Yep, we’ll pick it up in September. Spizale: Okay, any public announcements? Hoffman: We should have a motion to adjust the agenda. Spizale: Oh, a motion to adjust the agenda. Hoffman: With the deletion of item 3. Spizale: Through the deletion of item 3. Dillon: I’ll second that. Spizale: I can’t make a. Kelly: So moved. Spizale: Okay, seconded. Kelly moved, Dillon seconded to approve the agenda amended to delete item 3, discussion of the off leash dog park, and adding under council presentations an update on the Miracles for Mitch Kids Triathlon. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dillon moved, Kelly seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 26, 2005 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 3 2006 PARK & TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Spizale, members of the commission. This has been adjusted with the major adjusting being the first item on your old packet. We had a place holder in there for 2005 MUSA area land acquisition at $4 million dollars. At this time we’re recommending that we just, we don’t know what that acquisition is going to be. We don’t know how large it’s going to be. We don’t know if it’s going to be a dedication or purchase and so we’re active in that negotiation with the developer, the property owner and when that deal comes forward the commission will be made aware of it. The council will be made well aware of it and at that time we’ll talk about how we’re going to acquire the property. Is it going to be a dedication? Purchase? Density transfer? Just what is it going to be? So that has been removed. Some other significant changes. We split the athletic field lighting into 2 years. There was some talk about that at your last meeting so in 2007 we would light 2 additional fields and in 2008 we would like 2 fields and to make room for that adjustment we pushed out the Highway 101 north trail connection from Pleasant View to Town Line Road to 2008. That’s $114,000. Under this proposed capital improvement program, 2006 is an active year but when you consider that $540,000 of it is in that west water treatment plant park acquisition, which we have signed a purchased agreement on, the remainder of it goes downward significantly. You have some, still some fairly significant projects there. Highover trail. Athletic field improvements. Recreation center hockey boards. Lake Susan Park trails. Off leash dog area. That $35,000 is a typo. That should be 50. Kelly: For which one? Hoffman: Oh, Jerry didn’t get it changed? Is there two of them still on here? Kelly: No, I think the Lake Susan, I’m sorry the Lake Ann one seems to be gone. Hoffman: Yeah, it should say just off leash dog area. Not the city $50,000. I’ll adjust it from here. Rec Center trees. Oh yeah, there’s still a Lake Minnewashta off leash dog contribution so that goes away. And then some other projects with some trail projects. Park master plan updates. If you looked at 2007, major project is the Arboretum Business Park, Lot 12 trail. That’s the final section of trail going around the nature preserve and there is word on the street that that still, that’s the last lot in the Steiner development where Lifetime Fitness is and if there’s interest in that lot, so we think it’s going to develop probably in 2006 or 2007. The developer will build the trail but we have to pay for it as a section of comprehensive trail plan. It’s not fair to make them pay for that entire section so they will build it with their contractors but we will pay them and reimburse them for that and it’s estimated at $190,000. Dillon: So that would go from, near where that Holiday Inn is, and it would go south? Hoffman: Where the Holiday Inn is, there’s already a trail on, right adjacent to the road on the left hand side and that goes down to the intersection and when you get down to the intersection, that’s where the new section of trail would pick up. They go into those woods and then over to Trotters Ridge. Very nice section of trail. The nicest section of trail in that circle and then you’ll Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 4 be able to go over a mile in one loop. Some phase II playgrounds in 2007. Sugarbush Park. Roundhouse and Power Hill. All of those containers are currently in place. The size in preparation for the second phase and to be quite frank, the first phase is getting old. We don’t want to let it get too old and, before we would put a phase II in there so it’s about time. And then you move forward. If you look at the total, currently evenly taxed over 2007, 08, 09 and 10 and obviously there’ll be some adjustments as we move forward and some priorities come forward and are pushed back, but with the exception of the anomaly in 2006 with the land acquisition. All of these CFU’s are fairly uniformed. Right around $300,000 to $400,000. It’s recommended that the commission recommend that City Council approve the 2006-2010 CIP as presented and send it up to council. Spizale: I’ll open it up for discussion. Kevin. Dillon: Well I kind of in line with the discussion we had last time about some themes starting to emerge here, and I see the trail thing emerging. Very strongly. I think that’s a good thing. You know I personally take advantage of that and I see a lot of other people doing the same thing and I think that that’s going to continue to add recreational and overall value to our community. So I’m pretty excited seeing all that stuff in there. The, and all the other, you know suggested things. I mean you know we’ve talked about and beaten up pretty good. I mean they all seem to make good sense. I mean it seems like a very pragmatic approach, properly prioritized. Spizale: Okay, Tom. Kelly: I’ve got a couple questions I just want to make, the athletic field improvements. That does include dugouts? And the recreation center hockey boards, that includes removing that surface that’s cracking? Hoffman: Correct. Kelly: I just wanted, I thought that but I just wanted to make sure. I think that was all. Spizale: Paula. Atkins: Is there a plan for the performance stage in City Center Park? Hoffman: You know where the stage has been going in front of the tiered walls? Atkins: (Yes). Hoffman: Basically it would be some sort of a hard surface. Probably a two tiered concrete so you have a little step and then coming up onto a concrete performing stage. And then with some shade, probably from the canopies that can be removed in the winter so you would have a 3 or 4 pole system with some shade, something that can go up for performances and come down in the winter. Atkins: It’s permanent? The performance area. Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 5 Hoffman: Yes. Atkins: Okay. I’m wondering, when we got the $20,000 contribution to Lake Minnewashta, which we are talking about raising to $30,000 but then there’s $50,000 in the off leash dog area. Hoffman: All one pool of money. So the commission talked about last time on just making an off leash dog area allocation of $50,000. If you recommend 30 of that go to the County and the council supports that, then 30 of the 50 will go to the County. Atkins: Okay, I see. The Bandimere Heights, that’s a half court basketball court. Was that a conversion from something that is now into something else? Hoffman: When we removed their playground, the commission talked about we should put something back in that park. Atkins: That’s right. And I also remember the meeting before last there was some talk about improvements to the park down by the old village hall and the old church and it’s not anywhere on here so I’m just wondering if that’s just been. Hoffman: It’s in this year’s budget. Atkins: Is it? Hoffman: So October we’ll be putting pavers in. Same pavers that are here at City Center Park and planting 4 new trees in the center of the park and then also replicating the seating and the furniture that’s in this park down in that park so it will be very nice. $50,000 improvement. Atkins: Great. Makes me happy. Okay. Spizale: I agree with Kevin. I think we’ve got a nice theme going. I’m happy to see the money going to the off leash dog areas. I’ve got one question doesn’t exactly pertain to this but this Sugarbush Park. I notice where they did all the work by that well and stuff. Everything’s dying. Are they going to replace that or is that like done for? Hoffman: No, I hope they’ll replace the plantings. Yeah, they’ve got irrigation out there but they got it too late so. Spizale: Oh, okay. Other than that I think it looks great. Do we have a motion? Dillon: I move to support the capital expenditure plans put forth by the staff for 2006 to 10. Spizale: Do I have a second? Kelly: I second. Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 6 Dillon moved, Kelly seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the 2006-2010 Park & Trail Acquisition and Development CIP as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Hoffman: When you get on in 2009 and 2010, there are some things in there that will certainly come up for discussion again. I’m not sure Roundhouse Park is ready for hockey lights but it’s on the master plan and when Roundhouse was developed that’s what the neighborhood expected. We want hockey. We want tennis and lights come along with those facilities. Again I’m not quite sure that the neighborhood is going to be ready for them. Then there’s also an item you’ll note in 2010 which is the City Center Park warming house and City Center Park continues to evolve and so that item has been pushed out year after year and we just want to keep it there as a place holder because it is a part of our master plan for this park and, but in the future it may not be so it’s best not to build it if you’re going to change your master plan idea so we just keep it there as a place holder. Atkins: And Parkview picnic shelter, is that the existing one? Hoffman: No. Atkins: That’s the one you want to put up by the ballfield? Yeah, I’d like to see that possibly moved up a little bit maybe. Hoffman: Yeah, we have a shortage of group picnic sites and that upper parking lot, you know where you drive in and you go, Ballfield No. 3 there’s a lot of parking lots just across the road. It arrives for a nice access to that park/picnic area but we need just a standard park shelter building with a concrete slab and a roof over it. Spizale: Okay, any new business? It looks like there’s none. DAVE HUFFMAN MEMORIAL 5K RACE REPORT. Ruegemer: Thank you Commissioner Spizale. Just wanted to update the commission on the progress of the Huffman Race. We did have another meeting tonight for the race itself. Everything seems to be kind of falling into place. There seems to be a lot of excitement about the new route itself. Kelly: You’re not running it. Ruegemer: Yeah… Hoffman: Have you run it? Atkins: We run it all the time. We always have so. Ruegemer: So I imagine that the last, the last mile is going to be the toughest, coming up, off the hill from Big Horn but, so I’m sure our times will fluctuate from last year so we probably Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 7 wouldn’t have any state records this year per age group, but the course is certified now. We got together with Rick Recker last week. Our race director to go through. He came in and calibrated the route itself. We’ll be starting up kind of north of the tennis courts, up kind of by Ballfields 3 and 4. Up in there. We had to do that, push that kind of to the north to accommodate the extra distance that we needed to make up for. So we are exactly 3.1 miles. We’ll be starting up in there. Running across the grassy area coming south to kind of the city hall, kind of service road. Kind of going through just on the north side of city hall. Then we’ll be hooking onto Market Boulevard at that point. Going around Paula’s house and hooking up to Frontier Trail again off of West 77th Street. So we’ll have all the mile markers are already marked. We talked to the Boy Scouts about doing split time stuff again and that sort of thing at that point. Boy Scouts will be staffing the route itself again for that so we’re pretty excited for the big finish coming down Kerber Boulevard. We’re going to stay off the main road and on the trail itself for that so I think this is really going to be providing us with a safer course this year. We’re not really impacting a lot of major roads such as Powers Boulevard, crossing over that. We’re minimizing the closures downtown with that so we’ll get through town quick and get back through the neighborhoods and haven’t heard any opposition at all from the neighbors. I think they’re pretty excited. It’s really, our Race Director loved the course. It’s really kind of picturesque and kind of nestled back in the neighborhood so a lot of that information is out there right now. People are signing up for it. The shirt’s been ordered already at this point. Tents and that. Ken Garvin and I who are a member of the parade committee kind of looked at logistics the other day. Where the tent and stuff is going to go. We’re going to end up right about where the tennis, or excuse me, the hockey rinks are. We’re going to end up right at that intersection where the finish line is so if the commission is interested, Paula if you and Jack are running, you can, all the mile markers are marked and the starting and finish lines are marked in orange paint. So you kind of get a feel for where everything is going to be. Kelly: Did you also mark it on the trail like every half mile? I was riding that trail, I saw some markings every half or quarter mile. Is that? Ruegemer: Those, that isn’t part of our race. I know which ones you’re talking about. I’m not sure if there’s another organization out there. Atkins: Yeah, it’s called Jack Atkins. Ruegemer: Okay. Mystery solved. And that’s in kind of white or silver paint. Hoffman: We’ll have a police officer. Dillon: Is it the 10th? Ruegemer: Come again? Dillon: The 9th? Hoffman: September 10th. Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 8 Ruegemer: September 10th, yeah. 9:00 start. Kelly: Where’s the water stop? Is there going to be a water stop? Ruegemer: The water stop is going to be kind of that half way point which is right by ex- Councilman Berquist’s house. Right by the Sunrise Hills beachlot. That’s on Frontier Trail. On your right, about in that area, and I believe M&I Bank is going to be staffing those water stops for that, on the course itself and also at the finish line. Houlihan’s will be involved again with supplying the food at the end. The bananas. You know the bagels, that sort of thing. The juice. So really everything is really kind of falling into place with everything. Cones have been ordered for all the signs. You can eliminate you know a lot of the big 4 foot signs. You know be prepared to stop so we can save a little money that way. We’re saving on busing costs this year. I think a lot of people are excited about the starting and finishing at the same area. And just generally. I know as a runner, but from a logistics standpoint, I think the course will be a real nice treat for us. Kelly : The first half is shade, I mean the first half being shade almost going down Frontier. I think it will be good. Ruegemer: Yeah. Kelly: I’m sorry, going up Frontier. Did I say down? I meant up. Ruegemer: Yeah. Frontier Trail. I’ll send out letters again a week to 10 days again to the adjacent property owners along the route just to remind them again that the race is going to be coming up September 10th. We won’t close any streets but please be careful. Watch out for runners. Vikings cheerleaders are going to be involved again this year with the race. Had a lot of people kind of step up and volunteer. Chan Fitness is looking to volunteer. Holy Family School is looking to volunteer as well so I think we’re going to be properly staffed for that so. It will be a little bit different being at a different location for the sixth event here but I think it will work out very good. Kathy Huffman is coming back again this year with her son Jack. Their daughter Jessica is going to the school at the University of Minnesota now so she’ll be around again. Dave’s mom and sister are flying up from Texas for the event this year so that will be their first time up so they’re excited for that. And so it’s kind of falling into place. We’re going to be meeting every Tuesday from now until the race. That kind of fits in so it really is on track. We’ll get some more people signed up for it, which is not typical. I think there’s only like 30 to 50 or something signed up right now so, which is kind of the same pattern as previous years so. Hoffman: Get your…card in the mail? Atkins: Today got it. Kelly: Any discussion with Lifetime? I know they’re in the midst of forming a running club over there. Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 9 Ruegemer: Yeah, we have had contact with Lifetime but they’ve got to get back to us on that. With that so we kind of made that initial contact with them. See if they wanted to you know form a run club and then have this kind of be the carrot to dangle in front of people to run at the end but with it being a new facility I think they’re just trying to get their feet wet and. Kelly: Yeah. I know right now their run club is specifically geared towards Twin Cities Marathon and they’re hoping I think in mid August to start more of a recreational run club. I talked to the guy a couple times on the phone and he said right now the people that are showing up Monday’s and Wednesday’s, they’re going out on 8 mile runs. They’re running hills. They’re training for the Twin Cities Marathon. Ruegemer: Sure. I forgot to mention the kids race. The kids race is going to happen again. They are going to finish at the same finish line, but they’ll, Howard Anderson’s going to be working on that event and he’ll be kind of starting probably roughly probably at that intersection around the trail to the west and then either loop around the ballfield to the north or go up the sidewalk and head north and come back into the park. And they’ll probably stay on hard surface the whole time and kind of he’s going to probably mark that out here by the next week or so. And Culver’s is, Culver’s sponsoring the event so they’ll be giving away water bottles and I think free custard to all the kids at that event. Kelly: Kid Clips decided they weren’t going to, I know you had some. Ruegemer: We decided to pursue another sponsor for that event. Spizale: Any other comments from anybody? Well it looks like you’ve done a great job already on this Jerry. I’ve got one idea. Do they take pictures when people finish? Ruegemer: We have, Karen Engelhardt, our office manager has taken digital pictures and that. Spizale: I know as a money generator at Gramma’s, I don’t know if they still do, they used to take pictures at the finish and just everybody bought a picture of themselves finishing the race. That might be something, and maybe it’s too late but it might be something to bring up. I know it generated a lot of money for Gramma’s and people loved the pictures. Hoffman: I think the sales point between a marathon and a 5K is the difference. You run a marathon, a lot of them are like yeah. A 5K is you know. Ruegemer: You just get warmed up but. Hoffman: Yeah, have you seen… FALL RECREATION PROGRAM REPORT. Ruegemer: Thanks again. Just wanted to let everybody know what’s kind of happening for the fall. Corey’s been real busy putting together some fall programs. Certainly the highlight is the Halloween party. Barnyard Boogie is coming up here, and that’s a joint program between the Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 10 City of Chaska Park and Rec Department and the City of Chanhassen with that so we’ve got a lot of activity kind of coming up for that. A lot of kind of seasonal, sense of holiday types of classes so there’s a lot going on for preschool, youth and adults activities throughout the fall. Spizale: Any comments? Looks like a lot of stuff. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: Kelly: I can talk a little bit about the Miracles of Mitch Triathlon. I wasn’t organizing. I was just there as a participant but, well not me. My son but it was. I thought it was a fantastic event. They probably had close to 800. I’m not too sure if they hit 800 or not but I know they had at least 717 so I don’t know if they hit, I don’t know if you know if they hit 800. Hoffman: They haven’t posted it yet, no. Ruegemer: I haven’t heard about it. I heard it was about 8. Kelly: I thought it was a well run event. I don’t know if I heard any negative comments. The only negative comment I heard, and I guess I personally saw about 4 kids getting somewhat hurt on the obstacle course inflatable because as they came down that slide they flew right off and landed square on their back. There was, I know of at least 4 kids that were hurt. Yeah hurt and there was no adult supervision there so my only suggestion to, once they open that, they can’t somehow make that more gradual slide. Have an adult there to kind of watch these kids come down because I saw mothers and fathers trying to move their, trying to get their kids walking again so that was the only negative I saw from the whole thing. Hoffman: That’s a negative. Kelly: So, but besides that, I don’t know if you heard any comments. Hoffman: A few cars that didn’t get out of the park because the road was closed so they’re going to manage that next year differently. Kelly: Okay. Was there any talk about having two different transitions, because I know what seems to happen is you get the younger kids have been hanging around there for a while. They or their parents want to leave but the older kids, and there was a lot of them of course that are out on the course and they won’t let the younger kids come and get their bikes. Has there been any talk about having two different transition areas so some of the younger kids can actually leave in a couple hours as opposed to waiting for the complete? Hoffman: I don’t know if they talked about but. Ruegemer: They can’t leave anyway so. Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 11 Kelly: Oh, because of the park. Ruegemer: They can’t get out of the park. Hoffman: Next year they think their numbers will go back down. I’m not sure that they will yet because they’re going to do one or two additional races in the metro. So there may be some changes but it is, those kids need to, the older kids wait a long time to get in the water and their race is longer. Kids are done. I mean those kids done long before everybody was in the water. They were looking, they group back up with their parents and they’re like now what? Kelly: Yeah. Dillon: How many all competed all together? Hoffman: 800. Kelly: The trail was in great shape. I mean there wasn’t any debris on the trail. I thought it was a really well run event. It was a lot of fun. All the kids were pretty happy. Hoffman: They were happy. Beautiful day. Gorgeous set up. They used everything in the park. They used the beach. The entrance road for the biking and then the trail going to Greenwood Shores for the run. And so it’s just that biking that shuts down the road since there is only one road in and out. You cannot get motor vehicle traffic in and out and there’s really no other good way to do it. Kelly: Yeah. Spizale: …very well run. Kids had a great time. Yeah, it was electric. Alright. Any other presentations? No? ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Spizale: Did we get one Todd? Hoffman: No, there’s none. Kelly: Before we adjourn can I ask a couple questions? One was about the slide at Meadow Green. I know you were going to send someone to look at it. Did they see that bubble? Hoffman: Yes. Kelly: And that’s not, that’s a defect in the slide? Hoffman: Correct. The side that was burned has been replaced. The other one, the parts have been ordered. It’s under warranty and they’ll replace the parts that bubbled. Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 12 Kelly; Okay. It didn’t look like that was damage caused by anyone. It looked like maybe just the sun beating on it for all summer long. Hoffman: Defective sections. Kelly: Okay. The other question I had was about the corner of the trail on the corner of 101 and Pioneer where they stripe private trail in widening 101 as a plan to replace that trail once 101 gets widened. Hoffman: Yes, they’ll put it back in. None of the trails will go away but something, so you’re aware of in the future is, where 101 comes down and meets Pioneer we have a lot of comments from the neighborhood to the north. So this is going to Eden Prairie on Pioneer. This is going to Chaska and going to Shakopee. And then coming back into Chanhassen. And they’re…section right here so when they’re done with construction they’ll repair that section so it’s complete. Nothing has changed there. The trail was far enough off the right-of-way that it didn’t get destroyed. It didn’t have to be removed or replaced, but this 96th Street up here, they would like to get to this trail and when they come off of 96th Street they hit a big embankment. Most of them come down about a quarter of a block and they run across the street. The highway to get to the trail. 101 will be upgraded and widened all the way from 212 to the Scott County border at some point in the future. Probably within the next 5 years, and when that happens we’ll build a section of trail on their side of the road. So there will be a trail from their street down to this corner where they can cross a lit intersection. So we know that’s in the plan but that won’t be done until this road is widened and straightened. Kelly: Okay. And have we heard anything about the Halla, is it a golf course? Is that going to be? Hoffman: I haven’t heard that it’s opened yet. Kelly: No it’s not and I was just wondering if it was going to be open in 2005 or not. Ruegemer: It must be next year. Kelly: Yeah, they have a little more to do. Alright, that’s all. Those are just some questions I had. Spizale: Anybody else have any questions? Dillon: Yeah. We live right off the Lake Lucy Road and they put new curbs on that and they’re putting a bike trail along the north side. So is that part of the capital improvement plan going back a few years or is that out of a different budget altogether? Hoffman: Different budget. It’s out of the street improvements so it’s, I always say the best time to build a trail is with a road project because you’re right there building roads so you might as well add on the trail. And Lake Lucy Road was one of the first sections of road that was upgraded when trails were just coming into vogue and so everybody said we’ve got to build a Chanhassen Park and Rec Commission – August 23, 2005 13 trail on Lake Lucy. We’re going to upgrade this road and the debate went should we build it off street, on street, off street, and it almost was built off street. Would have been one of the first ones in the city but they decided no. They’re going to put it on street and just paint a white line. People hated it. They hated that white line for a trail and so it actually was a very good thing because every other trail after that we built with a road was off street. Now we’re finally getting back to upgrading Lake Lucy and they’re saying now the trail is going to go off street. We’re still meeting the same difficulties that we would have 15 or 18 years ago. It’s difficult to put a trail off street there, and the contract is scheduled to be done at the end of the month. We don’t think they’re going to make it and starting September 1 they’ll have a $700 per day liquidated damages charge on that contract so they’ll try to get it done but they’re behind schedule. Dillon: Why are they behind? Hoffman: Just not performing. Spizale: Any other questions? Kelly: Any updates on hiring a new Rec Center? Hoffman: We’re in the second round of interviews and so we’re completing those this week and we’re closed now. They closed last Saturday. They close through the Tuesday of opening of school. When we do open back up? On the 5th or 6th. 6th. September 6th. Tuesday. Dillon: It’s a little off the subject but it will just be interesting to see the impact that the Lifetime athletic club has on, not just our rec center but the entire community. It’s you know, it’s going to really kind of change the face of that side of the area I think. It’s gone from nothing to like pretty hopping area. Hoffman: It’s a significant facility. My first impression is we can live off of their table scrapes. So they’re such a large facility that there will be people leaving there on a monthly basis and the rec center is a much, much different operation than Lifetime Fitness. There’s going to be customers come in all different cross sections and we’re quite confident that there’s enough that would not want anything to do with a Lifetime Fitness but would feel very comfortable at a Chan Rec Center that will continue to be our customer. And there will be some people that quit Lifetime Fitness. Just don’t want to pay anymore or don’t like it and might find the recreation center a little more quiet so. We’re confident we’ll still maintain our ability to, the revenues at the rec center are $175,000 on an annual basis. That might pay for the pop fund at Lifetime and it costs us a quarter of a million dollars to keep…open so a very modest facility. Spizale: Anything else? Well we have time to talk about your boat Jerry. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Dillon moved, Atkins seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\10 Water Treatment Plant Staff Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager DATE: September 7, 2005 SUBJ: Consider Purchase of Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot B, Lake Harrison BACKGROUND The City Council approved the Development Contract on the Lake Harrison Development on July 11, 2005. The conditions in the Development Contract required the developer to sell Lot 1, Block 4 to the City for $740,000 for a future water treatment plant, and Outlot B for $560,000 for open space. The developer has also agreed to donate Outlots A, C, and D to the city for a neighborhood park/open space (see map in Attachment 1). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following action: · Approval of the purchase agreement to buy Lot 1, Block 4 for $740,000 for a future water treatment plant. The funding source for this purchase would be the Water Utility Fund. · Approval of the purchase agreement to buy Outlot B for $560,000 for open space. The funding source for this purchase is the Park Dedication Fund; and · Approval of a Resolution Accepting the Donation of Outlots A, C & D for a neighborhood park/open space. Approval requires a simple majority vote of those city council members present. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Land to be Purchased/Donated 2. Purchase Agreements 3. Resolution Accepting Donation MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJ: Recommendation to Submit an Application for Use of the Southwest LRT Route as a Designated Snowmobile Trail, 2005-2006 Season Annually for the past eleven years, the City has requested a winter use permit from Three Rivers Park District allowing snowmobile usage on the Southwest Light Rail Transit (LRT) trail in Chanhassen. The Chanhassen Snowmobile Club marks the trail with signage and provides grooming when required. The trail receives light to moderate use from snowmobiles due to limited access points available to riders. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council submit an application to the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District for use of the Southwest LRT trail located in Chanhassen as a designated snowmobile trail. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Site Map 3. Correspondence from Three Rivers Park District 4. Chanhassen Snowmobile Rules and Regulations CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: September 12, 2005 RESOLUTION NO: 2005- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING USE OF SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ROUTE AS A SNOWMOBILE TRAIL NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby approves the use of the Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit Route as a snowmobile trail for the 2005/2006 snow season. This use is to be governed by a 30 mph speed limit and a 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. seven day a week curfew. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 12th day of September, 2005. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor YES NO ABSENT MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJ: Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Ad for Bids 2005 MUSA Improvements - Bid Package #1 Project No. 04-05 REQUESTED ACTION The City Council is requested to approve the final plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for Bid Package #1 for the 2005 MUSA Improvements (Bluff Creek Lowlands Public Infrastructure). BACKGROUND On February 28, 2005, the City Council ordered the 2005 MUSA Improvements not associated with the TH 212 project. These improvements include various street and utility improvements within the 2005 MUSA area as detailed in the August, 2004 Feasibility Report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates. On March 28, 2005, the City Council approved a Consultant Work Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates for preliminary design services for the 2005 MUSA Improvements. The proposed roadway and utility plans developed through the preliminary design process were presented to the City Council at a work session on August 8, 2005. These improvements are as follows: 1. Roadway Improvements · East-West Collector Roadway between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard. · East-West Collector Roadway/Audubon Road Turn Lanes and Traffic Signal. 2. Watermain Improvements · Extension of existing trunk watermain at Lyman Boulevard to the proposed location of the East-West Collector Roadway. · Trunk watermain along the East-West Collector Roadway between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard. Todd Gerhardt September 12, 2005 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\12 2005 MUSA Improvements Staff Report.doc 3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements · Extension of trunk sanitary sewer from an existing lift station along the south side of Lyman Boulevard east of Audubon Boulevard. · Trunk sanitary sewer along the East-West Collector Roadway between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard. 4. Storm Drainage Improvements · Storm sewer and ponding improvements along the East-West Collector Roadway between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard. On August 22, 2005, the City Council authorized the preparation of final plans and specifications for the project and approved a consultant work order with Kimley-Horn and Associates for the final design services. Based upon current estimates, the total estimated project cost of these infrastructure improvements is approximately $8.5 million. DISCUSSION Two separate bid packages are being prepared for the project to allow some of the construction to occur in 2005. Staff is requesting City Council approval of the plans and specifications for only Bid Package #1 at this time. The improvements are shown on the Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I – Project No. 04-05ed drawing. The following is a description of the improvements included as a part of Bid Package #1. Bid Package #1 - Bluff Creek Bridge and Trunk Watermain and Sanitary Sewer · Installation of trunk watermain along the east side of Bluff Creek between Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway. · Installation of trunk sanitary sewer along the east side of Bluff Creek between Lyman Boulevard and the East-West Collector Roadway. · Construction of a bridge across Bluff Creek including the realignment of a portion of the creek channel. The proposed schedule for the Bid Package #1 improvements is as follows: Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Ad for Bids Sept. 12, 2005 Accept Preliminary Assessment Roll & Call Assessment Hearing Sept. 26, 2005 Bid Opening Oct. 14, 2005 Assessment Hearing and Award Contract Oct. 24, 2005 Start Construction Nov. 7, 2005 Construction Complete Feb. 3, 2006 Todd Gerhardt September 12, 2005 Page 3 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\12 2005 MUSA Improvements Staff Report.doc These improvements are proposed to be constructed during the late fall/early winter months of 2005 to take advantage of frozen ground conditions and low flows in Bluff Creek. The ability to construct Bid Package #1 during 2005 is dependent upon the City receiving right-of-way/easements or a right-of-entry from the Degler property. Staff is currently in discussions with the Degler’s to obtain the required right-of- way/easements or right-of-entry. We are working to have this issue resolved prior to the October 24, 2005 date for the award of the construction contract for Bid Package #1. A copy of the final plans and specifications for Bid Package #1 are available for review in the Engineering Department. Future Bid Package #2 will include the remainder of the proposed public infrastructure improvements for the 2005 MUSA area. Staff is currently planning to have the final plans and specifications for Bid Package #2 completed for City Council approval on January 23, 2006. Construction of the Bid Package #2 improvements is planned to begin in May, 2006. Attachment c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\13 2006 Street Imp Staff Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Director of Public Works FROM: Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJECT: Approve Consultant Contract for 2006 Street Improvement Project Project No. 06-01 REQUESTED ACTION (Simple majority vote required) City Council is recommended to authorize the preparation of a feasibility study for the 2006 Street Improvement Project and approve a consultant work order in the amount of $204,820.00 with Bolton & Menk, Inc. BACKGROUND On August 22, 2005, staff discussed the proposed scope of the 2006 Street Improvement Project with Council. The area proposed for street reconstruction is northwest of Yosemite Avenue and Lake Lucy Road. Approximately 1.05 miles of roads are proposed for reconstruction, including Yosemite Avenue from 6481 Yosemite Avenue to the City limits, West 63rd Street from Yosemite Avenue to Cardinal Avenue, Audubon Circle, Blue Jay Circle, Cardinal Avenue from West 63rd Street to the City limits, Koehnen Circle West and Koehnen Circle East. The streets will be reconstructed to the City’s standard street design, but the width may vary in some areas due to site constraints. The reconstruction project will include the improvement or replacement of most public utilities within the reconstruction project area. Storm sewer improvements will include the installation of storm sewer designed for a 10-year storm event. New ponding areas or environmental manholes will be constructed in conjunction with the project. All watermain within the reconstruction area will be replaced. Watermain services within the right-of-way will be replaced, as will all curb stops. Sanitary sewer improvements are also planned. The Chanhassen Hills area in the northwest quadrant of Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard is anticipated to be milled and overlaid in conjunction with the rehabilitation portion of the project. Approximately 1.07 miles of streets shall be resurfaced, including Lake Susan Drive, Chanhassen Hills Drive North and South, Barbara Court, Mary Jane Circle, Lake Susan Court and Lyman Court. Rehabilitation will also include repair of damaged pavement areas and replacing damaged concrete curb and gutter. Paul Oehme September 12, 2005 Page 2 The Lake Ann Park improvements associated with this project include reclaiming and repaving parking lots and roadways, realigning a roadway intersection, placing concrete curb and gutter in designated areas and expanding parking areas. On August 16, 2005, a Request for Proposals (RFPs) for this project was emailed to the City’s consultant pool, which includes: Bolton & Menk, Inc., Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. (HTPO), and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. All firms submitted a proposal which is summarized as follows: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Submitted prior to the deadline ü ü ü ü Proposal format ü ü ü ü Transmittal letter submitted with required information ü ü ü ü Members of the consultant team identified ü ü ü ü Understanding of project ü ü ü ü Construction Supervisor Experience ü ü ü ü Project cost: Street Improvements Lake Ann Park Improvements Total $179,980.00 $ 24,740.00 $204,720.00 $230,999.00 $ 46,034.00 $277,033.00 $239,387.00 $ 35,008.00 $274,395.00 $247,780.00 $ 42,140.00 $289,920.00 FUNDING Forty percent of the street reconstruction and rehabilitation project costs will be assessed to the benefiting property owners. The remainder of the project cost will be paid from the enterprise funds or revolving street assessment account. It is assumed that the Lake Ann Park Improvements will be fully funded in the 2006 CIP. The contract will be a time and materials based work not to exceed amount. As with all engineering contracts, the consultant must submit periodical invoices that staff will review before processing. The consultant will be required to submit time sheets verifying the hours worked on the project and expense sheets. Staff Paul Oehme September 12, 2005 Page 3 will review the invoices and expense sheets for accuracy and conformance to the contract. Bolten & Menk, Inc. has worked on several City projects and most recently, the Well No. 9 improvements. They are currently working on Well Nos. 10 and 11 improvements. Their work has been satisfactory. RECOMMENDED MOTION Move to authorize the preparation of a feasibility study for 2006 Street Improvement Project and approve a consultant work order with Bolton & Menk, Inc. in the amount of $204,720.00 for complete engineering services related to the project. Attachments: Project Area Maps c: Bill Bement, Engineering Technician IV Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Mark Statz, Bonestroo, Rosene Anderlik & Associates Dale Tranter, Bonestroo, Rosene Anderlik & Associates Laurie Johnson, HTPO, Inc. Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Chadd Larson, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. g:\eng\public\06-01 2006 street improvements\bkg appv conlt contract 09-12-05.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager DATE: September 9, 2005 RE: De-Certification of the Gateway TIF District #6 BACKGROUND The City of Chanhassen has established Tax Increment Districts to assist in the economic development of the City. One of these districts, the Gateway District #6 has reached a point where it needs to be decertified and placed on the general tax rolls. Gateway TIF District #6 (County District #24) This district was originally created on May 27, 1997. Several office/industrial buildings have been built in this district, along with other uses such as Lifetime Fitness and Holiday Inn Express. All obligations for this district will have been met by the end of 2005, so decertification of this district is now recommended. Minnesota state statute requires cities to notify the State and Carver County of the City’s desire to decertify TIF districts. While staff is recommending that the district actually be decertified effective December 31, 2005, giving Carver County this advance notice will allow them to produce more accurate Truth-In-Taxation notices that will go out this fall. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution decertifying the Gateway TIF District #6 effective December 31, 2005. A simple majority of the council is required for approval of this action. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: September 12, 2005 RESOLUTION NO: 2005- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION APPROVING DECERTIFICATION OF THE GATEWAY TIF DISTRICT A. WHEREAS, on May 27, 1997, the City of Chanhassen (the "City") created its Tax Increment Financing District No. 6, (the "District"); and; B. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 to 469.179 requires that the Tax Increment Financing District be terminated when all obligations within the district have been met; C. WHEREAS, the City desires by this resolution to acknowledge the decertification of the District, after which all property taxes generated by property within the District have been and will continue to be distributed in the same manner as all other property taxes beginning with taxes payable in 2006, and; D. WHEREAS, as of December 31, 2005 all obligations to which tax increment from the District have been pledged have been paid in full; and; E. WHEREAS, the remaining tax increment in the account for the District will be returned after the books for 2005 are closed to the County Auditor for redistribution to the regular taxing jurisdictions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as follows: That the Carver County Auditor is authorized and requested to decertify the Gateway TIF District No. 6 (County District No. 24) as a tax increment district and to no longer remit tax increment from the District to the City as of December 31, 2005. Passed and adopted this 12th day of September, 2005. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor YES NO ABSENT MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager DATE: September 2, 2005 RE: Cell Tower Lease Agreement with T-Mobile BACKGROUND Staff has been contacted by representatives from T-Mobile (officially a VoiceStream Minneapolis company) regarding the installation of cellular phone antennae on the Lake Lucy water tower. This tower already has cellular antennae for Sprint, and the addition of T-Mobile antennae would help generate revenue for the City and provide better service for T-Mobile customers while not impacting the operations of the Lake Lucy water tower. The key points of the agreement are as follows: · The term of the lease is for five years, beginning on the earlier of November 1, 2005 or the date construction begins. The lease can be extended for up to 20 years (four renewal terms of five years each). · Rent for the first term is $1,650/month. This amount increases by 3% in each successive renewal term. This rent structure is similar to other cell leases in the City and on this specific tower. · The antennae will be mounted on the sides of the tower, and will not extend into the air above the tower. · Ant taxes levied on the property due to the antennae will be paid by T- Mobile. · Any expenses incurred by the City due to the antennae will be reimbursed by T-Mobile. · The agreement may be terminated by the City if rent is not paid 15 days after written notice, if the water tower no longer becomes needed, or if a higher priority user (such as a City or public safety use) is needed. · T-Mobile will pay an administrative fee of $5,000 on the commencement date to pay for independent inspections services that the City intends on using to monitor the installation of the antennae. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached Water Tower Antennae Agreement with VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc. for the purposes of installing cellular telephone antennae on the Lake Lucy Water Tower. This action requires a majority of the City Council for approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJ: Troy & Virginia Kakacek – Planning Case #05-18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item was appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86th Street. These improvements have already been built. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the proposed project. That decision was appealed by the applicant, and thus, has come before the City Council. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page 7 of the staff report dated September 12, 2005. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 19, 2005. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variance\executive summary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE DATA PC DATE: July 19, 2005 CC DATE: September 12, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: September 13, 2005 CASE #: 05-18 BY: JM, JS, DR STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 380 West 86th Street. These improvements have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Troy & Virginia Kakacek 380 West 86th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These improvements have already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance July 19 September 12, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2005, to review the proposed variance. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 for denial. That decision was appealed by the applicant, and thus, has come before the City Council. The summary and verbatim minutes are Attachment 8 of this packet. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard on West 86th Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4.23% (which represents 642.24 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall. These structures have already been built bringing the existing hard surface coverage to 29.23%. N o r t h B ay Dr W 86th St T i g u a L a n e MissionHills Crt Missio n H i ll s L a ne H w y 101 G re at P l ain s Blvd W 86th St Marshland Trl M o n k C r t Ric e C rt Missio n Way Hill W Mission W ay Hill E Heart l and Crt Bla c k bird Crt M a y f ield Crt M i s s i on Hills Dr. Mission Hills D r. Fris c o Crt Mission Hills La n e M i s s i o n H ills Circle P r o p o s e d T .H .2 1 2 Subject Site Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance July 19 September 12, 2005 Page 3 (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. (20) BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition which was recorded on October 22, 2003. The house was built in 2004. The patio, retaining wall and sidewalks were not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 15,180 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant currently has a hard cover of 29.23%. The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in mid-November when the as-built survey from Otto Associates was submitted. It appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. The City requested that hard cover calculation details be shown on the as-built survey. The City received the revised survey on December 2, 2004 showing the existing hard cover was 31.8%. Shortly after, staff informed the applicant they must bring the lot into compliance with hard cover restrictions or apply for a variance. This application was originally scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on June 7, 2005. The original proposal included the concrete and gravel sidewalks as part of the variance request. This put the hard cover request at 30.86%. The applicant requested the application be tabled in order to revise the variance proposal. The Kakacek’s have since removed the concrete and gravel sidewalks and have replaced them with landscaping rock and mulch. In doing so the applicant has reduced the existing hardcover by 248 square feet, or 1.63%. Therefore, a correction to the survey hard cover calculations needs to be made. The as-built survey includes the sidewalks as part of the hard cover calculation. The City does not consider landscape rock and mulch, with a fabric liner, to be impervious surface. Therefore, the sidewalk portion of the hard cover calculations shall be ignored for the purposes of this variance request. Planning Case #05-18 Kakacek Variance July 19 September 12, 2005 Page 4 Before - Gravel Walkway After – Mulch Walkway Before - Concrete Sidewalk After – Rock Walkway Revised as-built survey calculation: House = 2,537.24 sq. ft. Patio = 519.00 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,369.00 sq. ft. Retaining Wall= 12.00 sq. ft. TOTAL = 4,437.24 sq. ft. 29.23% In discussing the matter, the applicant informed staff that miscommunication had contributed to the violation of impervious surface restrictions. According to the applicant, the plans which the City approved were different from those the homeowner had in their possession. The applicant did meet with staff, prior to construction of the home, to discuss landscaping options for the property. Staff informed the applicant that any part of the property could be landscaped except in easements. In a meeting between staff and the applicant, which took place after the issue of impervious surface came to the attention of the City, it was revealed that the applicants’ interpretation of landscaping included patio areas. Had staff been aware of this interpretation, the applicant would have been informed that hard cover restrictions include concrete and paver patios. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 5 Adding to the discrepancies between the proposed building survey and the as-built survey are the dimensions of the driveway. The driveway was built larger and with a different shape than that which was proposed. The as-built survey shows that the home and driveway alone are at 25.8% (111.24 square feet over the maximum permitted hard cover). ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the sidewalks and patio in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sidewalks and patios. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. Patio Retaining Wall/Rock Sidewalk There are alternatives the applicant could pursue to bring the property into compliance with City Code. Regarding the patio, the applicant could remove the patio pavers and replace them with wooden decking with a pervious surface below. This would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. In addition, in order to reach 25%, the size of the driveway would have to be reduced by at least 111.24 square feet. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two- car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. There are alternatives the property owner could pursue to receive the same utility, i.e., use of deck instead of patio. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 6 LANDSCAPING The landscaping requirements for Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition included a total of 12 trees to be planted as part of subdivision approval. Each lot was required to have two trees of the aforementioned trees planted in the front yard. Lot 4, Block 1, 380 West 86th Street is required to have a total of four trees planted as part of the subdivision conditions of approval. A recent inspection of the property found only one tree, a crabapple, planted in the front yard. Two existing trees remain in the rear yard. This lot requires three more trees to be planted in order to meet subdivision requirements. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two-car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. There are also reasonable alternatives to the patio. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the patio and retaining wall were completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in runoff from this property. Kakacek Variance Planning Case #05-18 July 19, 2005 Page 7 f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion: “The Planning Commission City Council denies Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission City Council orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. 2. Plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements.” Should the Planning Commission City Council choose to approve the variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion: “The Planning Commission City Council approves Variance #05-18 for a 4.23% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a patio and retaining wall on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must plant three trees to meet subdivision requirements.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Troy & Virginia Kakacek stamped “Received May 6, 2005”. 4. Letter from Kurt & Lynne Miller dated May 4, 2005. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 6. Building Permit Survey. 7. As-Built Survey. 8. July 19, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-18 kakacek variance\staff report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJ: McCord/Sanford Wetland Alteration Permit – Planning Case No. 05-22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit to construct a boardwalk across a wetland and place a dock on Lotus Lake on property zoned PUD-R with an area of 1.01 acres, Lot 9, Block 1 Fox Chase. ACTION REQUIRED City Council action requires a simple majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 2, 2005 to review the proposed wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to deny the proposed request. The summary and verbatim minutes are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion denying the wetland alteration permit as found on page 6 of the staff report dated August 2, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated August 2, 2005. 2. August 2, 2005 Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes. G:\PLAN\2005 Planning Cases\05-22 McCord-Sanford WAP\Executive Summary.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council Members FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director DATE: September 8, 2005 SUBJ: Approval of Preliminary Tax Levy In response to the discussion and City Council direction at the council work session on August 22nd, staff has prepared a preliminary tax levy. Council directed staff to include the use of $285,000 of excess fund balance to pay debt levies and maintain what is calculated as a zero effect on the average taxpayer in the city. The levy proposed for taxes payable in 2006 will show a total of $9,354,890, which is $100,021 less than the 2005 levy. Included for your review is the summary of the levy proposed showing a net effect on existing property owners of zero percent. Also included are the bond levy schedule from now thru 2025 and the revolving improvement fund through 2017. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the preliminary tax levy as presented. This action requires a simple majority vote of those present. ATTACHMENTS 1. Bond Tax Levy Schedule 2005-2025 2. Revolving Improvement Fund Schedule 3. Levy Summary Schedule CITY OF CHANHASSEN TAX LEVY 2006 Budget 20052006Percent TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVYLevyLevyIncrease General Fund$6,251,8206,399,600$ 2.36%147,780 Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment)$800,000800,000$ 0.00% MSA Fund (for street & trail pavement maint.)162,000216,500 33.64% Special Assessment Debt 96,940 129,300 33.38% General Obligation Debt658,604 484,614-26.42% General Obligation Debt (212 Bonds)- 80,000 Debt of Other Agencies (EDA)121,213 122,048 0.69% TOTAL TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVIES$8,090,5778,232,062 1.75% MARKET VALUE TAX LEVY Park Referendum881,234 921,128 4.53% Library Referendum483,100 486,700 0.75% TOTAL MARKET VALUE TAX LEVY$1,364,334$1,407,8283.19% TOTAL TAX LEVY$9,454,911$9,639,8901.96% Dollar Increase$184,979 Levy W/O DebtLevy With Debt Service ReductionService Reduction Taxes applied to:General Fund6,399,600$ 6,399,600$ Capital Replacement800,000800,000 MSA Fund216,500216,500 Total Levy subject to levy limits$7,416,100$7,416,100 Bond Funds2,223,7902,223,790 Reduction in DS Levy0(285,000)** Total$9,639,890$9,354,890 Scenario 1Scenario 1.5 No MV IncreaseNo MV Increase Tax Generation Capacity W/O DS ReductWith DS Reduct ** Prior Year$9,454,911$9,454,911 New Construction$236,373$236,373 Exsiting MV Inc$0$0 TIF Dist 1-$415,000-$415,000 Eden Trace TIF-$45,000-$45,000 Gateway TIF$125,000$125,000 Total Capacity$9,356,284$9,356,284 Net Effect on existing property owners3.03%-0.01% ** - These funds to be used to pay down the debt levy by about $500,000 each of the next four years. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: September 12, 2005 RESOLUTION NO: 2005- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2005 BUDGET, AND ESTABLISHING TRUTH IN TAXATION TAX LEVIES FOR 2005, COLLECTIBLE IN 2006 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the 2006 Budget for the City of Chanhassen is adopted in the aggregate revenue and expenditure amounts for the General Fund of $8,615,100, which are detailed in the 2006 Preliminary Budget; and 2. That the following sums of money have been scheduled as “Proposed Levy Certification” to fund operations of the general fund, capital replacement fund, MSA fund and debt service funds to be levied in 2005 for collection in 2006 upon the taxable property in the City of Chanhassen as shown in this resolution; and 3. That the City Council of the City of Chanhassen determines that certain bonded indebtedness levies are hereby adopted to meet current and future bond requirements and that the County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to increase or reduce the previously adopted bonded debt levies as shown on the attached Tax Levy Certification document ; and 4. That the Truth in Taxation hearing date will be set for December 5, 2005 and the budget and tax levy adoption will be set for December 12, 2005 as allowed by law; and 5. That the City of Chanhassen authorizes the County Auditor to certify the amounts as set forth in the attached Proposed Levy Certification document for purposes of preparing the Truth in Taxation notices. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 12th day of September, 2005. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor YES NO ABSENT City Council / Parks & Recreation Commission Joint Meeting Agenda Items September 12, 2005 Prepared by Glenn Stolar, Chairman 1) Playgrounds a) Thank you for your support b) Added excitement to our parks 2) Athletic Fields a) Increase capacity through lighting b) Improvements for Lake Ann fields 3) Off-leash dog area a) Recommend continuing to keep working with Carver County b) Still considering other areas within city parks 4) Skate Park a) Recent actions b) Four step plan 5) Council Questions MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJ: Joint Meeting with the Environmental Commission The Environmental Commission is looking forward to the opportunity to discuss current projects and updates with the Mayor and City Council. Projects/Updates · Arbor Day event · 4th of July parade entry · Chanhassen Day at Arboretum · Environmental Excellence Award program – deadline October 29 · Fall Recycling Day – October 27, 9am – 6pm MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson AICP, Community Development Director DATE: September 12, 2005 SUBJ: Update on 2005 Industrial Replacement Attached is a map showing potential industrial sites. The proposed loss of industrial land on the Town & Country and Peterson/D.R. Horton sites would be 60 acres. The potential replacement includes three properties and would exceed the 70 acres. I will discuss the implications of this industrial replacement in further detail at the meeting. g:\plan\ka\city council\2005 industrial replacement.doc