The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Packet 2006 07 10AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JULY 10, 2006 CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. A. Review 2005 Audit, HLB Tautges. B. Highway 212 Update, Project 03-09. 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 June 26, 2006 - City Council Summary Minutes dated June 26, 2006 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated June 26, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated June 20, 2006 - Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated June 20, 2006 b. Item Deleted (Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-5: Approve Quotes for Security System). c. Item Deleted (Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Well Nos. 2, 5 & 6 Improvements.) d. Item Deleted (TH 101 Gap Project 04-06: Approve Quit Claim Deed for Lake Susan Apartment Parcel.) e. Approve Amendment to Park & Trail Capital Improvement Program. f. Abra Auto Body & Glass, 60 Lake Drive East: Approval of Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile Body Repair Shop and Site Plan Approval for a 14, 430 sq. ft. Expansion to a 4,074 sq. ft. Building. g. Approval of 2006 Transfers: Revolving Assessment Fund & Capital Replacement Fund. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Consider Vacation of Alley Right-of-Way North of West 78th Street, Lot 3, Block 2, St. Hubertus, Vacation File 06-02. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 3. LAKESIDE, 125 Lakeview Road, Applicant: Sienna Corporation: Request for a Planned Unit Development on 26.34 Acres Rezoning the Property from R12, High Density- Residential to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential, with Variances; Preliminary Plat for 29 Building Lots, Two Outlots, and Right-of-Way for Public Streets; Site Plan Review for a 234-unit Residential Development, Including Two-, Three-, Four- and Condominium-Unit Buildings, and a Community Building; and a Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot with Variances. 4. THOMAS SCHWARTZ, 7376 Bent Bow Trail: Request for a a Variance to Allow Structures within the 40-ft. Wetland Buffer Setback. 5. GARY CARLSON, 3891 West 62nd Street: Variance Request for Relief from the 30-ft. Front Yard Setback Requirement for the Construction of an Existing Four-Stall Garage and Relief from the 1,000 sq. ft. Detached Accessory Structure Restriction for the RSF District. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET ADJOURNMENT A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. 1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. 4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. 5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council Members FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director DATE: July 6, 2006 SUBJ: Review of 2005 Audit The Finance Department just finished another audit cycle. Melanie Accola, the audit manager from HLB Tautges, Redpath will be here on Monday evening to review the financial results and audit findings of the 2005 audit. BACKGROUND The statements are once again presented with information that takes into account the city’s entire financial picture in a format similar to a proprietary or a for-profit organization, including a statement of activities which breaks out the primary government and proprietary revenues and expenses by function type. For 2005, the General Fund had an increase in fund balance of $675,519. This was the result of a surplus of revenue over expenditures, which was due to a couple of items. The first was excess Tax Increment from the closing of the Eden Trace and National Weather Service TIF districts ($236,000), secondly larger than anticipated collection of Engineering Administration Construction Fees ($100,000) and spending less than budgeted expenditures in the fund of about two percent ($179,000). The City’s enterprise funds had an increase in net assets of over $450,000 in 2005. It should be noted that an operating loss was shown in all three funds on Statement 7; however, that includes amounts for depreciation and does not include connection charge revenues. By taking into account each of those items, all three funds would have shown profits for 2005. In total, the city’s enterprise funds appear to be financially stable as of the end of the year in 2005 and are in line with the current rate study. AUDIT FINDINGS There are three reports that HLB Tautges, Redpath completes for the City. The first is the Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with Minnesota Legal Review of 2005 Audit July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 2 Compliance Guide for Local Government. This report is submitted to the Office of the State Auditor along with the annual report. There were no findings in this report for 2005. The second report is the Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance and on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. This report lists conditions that could affect our ability to properly record and report transactions. These conditions do not rise to the level of a material weakness in our controls, but should be corrected to help ensure that procedures are properly followed. There was one item noted in this report. Payroll timesheets from the fire department did not show evidence of proper supervisor approval in all instances for those items tested. Our response to the finding was once finance staff was made aware of the problem, a new policy was implemented immediately in February of 2006 to require the proper signatures on all types of fire department timesheets. The third report is the audit management letter. This is a longer description of summary information that highlights comparisons and trends for financial results. This also reviews city policies, procedures and systems, and outside factors that may affect the city’s financial operations. A few items were recommended in this report and will be discussed at the meeting. This is something that HLB Tautges, Redpath does outside of the scope of audit requirements. Ms. Accola will explain this information and will be happy to respond to your questions on Monday along with me. ATTACHMENTS 1. Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 2. Report on Compliance with Minnesota Legal Compliance Guide 3. Report on Compliance and on Internal Control 4. Audit Management Letter COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005 Finance Department Greg Sticha, Finance Director Member of Government Finance Officers Association of United States and Canada - This page intentionally left blank - CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ReferenceNo. I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal 3 Certificate of Achievement 13 Organization 15 Organization Chart 17 II. FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 21 Management's Discussion and Analysis 25 Basic Financial Statements: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net AssetsStatement 141 Statement of ActivitiesStatement 242 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet - Governmental FundsStatement 344 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Governmental FundsStatement 446 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Statement 548 Statement of Net Assets - Proprietary FundsStatement 649 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets - Proprietary FundsStatement 750 Statement of Cash Flows - Proprietary FundsStatement 851 Statement of Net Assets - Fiduciary FundsStatement 952 Notes to Financial Statements 53 Required Supplementary Information: Budgetary Comparison Schedule - General FundStatement 1086 Budgetary Comparison Schedule - Note to RSI92 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ReferenceNo. Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules: Combining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Governmental FundsStatement 1198 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Governmental FundsStatement 1299 Subcombining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Special Revenue FundsStatement 13102 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Special Revenue FundsStatement 14103 Subcombining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Debt Service FundsStatement 15106 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Debt Service FundsStatement 16108 Subcombining Balance Sheet - Nonmajor Capital Project FundsStatement 17113 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Nonmajor Capital Project FundsStatement 18117 Special Revenue Funds: Schedules of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances - Budget and Actual: Contribution FundStatement 19120 CATV Statement 20121 Environmental Protection/ManagementStatement 21122 Combining Statement of Net Assets - Agency FundsStatement 22124 Combining Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilites - Agency FundsStatement 23125 Supplementary Financial Information: Combined Schedule of IndebtednessExhibit 1128 Debt Service Payments to Maturity: General Obligation BondsExhibit 2130 General Obligation Improvement BondsExhibit 3132 Revenue BondsExhibit 4133 Taxable Valuations, Tax Levies and Tax RatesExhibit 5135 Schedule of Deferred Tax LeviesExhibit 6136 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ReferenceNo. III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) Government-Wide Information Government-Wide Expenses By Function Table 1140 Government-Wide Revenues Table 2142 Fund Information: General Governmental Expenditures by Function - Last Ten Fiscal Years Table 3144 General Governmental Revenues by Source - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 4145 Special Assessment Billings and Collections - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 5146 Computation of Legal Debt MarginTable 6147 Ratio of Annual Debt Service Expenditures for General Obligation Bonded Debt to Total General Governmental Expenditures - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 7148 Miscellaneous Statistical DataTable 8149 Property Tax Levies and Tax Collections - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 9150 Tax Capacity Value and Estimated Market Value of All Taxable Property - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 10151 Property Tax Rates - Direct and Overlapping Governments Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 11152 Ratio of Net Bonded Debt to Assessed Value and Net Bonded Debt Per Capita Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 12153 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt Including Debt RatiosTable 13154 Principal Taxpayers Table 14155 Property Value and Construction - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 15156 Demographic Statistics - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 16157 Revenue Bond Coverage - Water Revenue Bonds - Last Ten Fiscal YearsTable 17158 - This page intentionally left blank - I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION temporary - 1temporary - 111111111111 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 2temporary - 222222222222 person board comprised of one member appointed by each jurisdiction who is a party to the joint powers agreement. Although the city is jointly responsible for the maintenance and cleanup costs of the training site in rural Carver County, we do not exercise substantial control of the association. The school districts that serve residents of the city, like all school districts in Minnesota, are governed independently by their own elected board members. They levy their own taxes and prepare their own financial reports. Accordingly, they are excluded from this report. Economic Condition and Outlook The City of Chanhassen, located in the southwestern portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, is situated primarily in Carver County with a small portion within Hennepin County. The City encompasses an area of 23.78 square miles. U.S. Highways 169 and 212, as well as State Highways 5, 7, 41 and 101, provide access for commuters coming into the City from the Twin Cities metropolitan area as well as for city residents traveling to work outside the City. The City is now focused on the construction of Highway 212 through Chanhassen. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has contracted with a design-build firm that will begin construction in the summer of 2006. Most of the right-of-way has been purchased or is currently under offer from MnDOT. As a limited access highway, the rerouting will greatly improve traffic capacity through Chanhassen. The funding for highway construction was authorized in a bill passed by the state legislature in the 2003 special session. The project is anticipated to be complete in the fall of 2008. The City's population estimate as of April 1, 2006 is 23,864, which represents a 1.0% increase over the 2005 figure of 23,652. Chanhassen has experienced steady growth in residential as well as commercial/industrial uses. In the past year there was a total of 92 residential permits issued. The total valuation of all building permits for 2005 was $74,135,777, a decrease of $12,757,311 under 2004 permit values. The City has completed an Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) assessment and a feasibility study for the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) which includes 600 acres south of Lyman Boulevard. The MUSA area, or the lower Bluff Creek area, is where the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services division will allow urban sewage extended. This area may be developed over the next five years in conjunction with construction of the Hwy 212 corridor and improvements to roads in that area. The city has given preliminary plat approval for 671 residential units and final plat approval for an additional 444 units in this area. Water and sewer lines and streets will be extended in that area in response to developer requests. Accounting System and Budgetary Control The City's accounting records are maintained on the accrual, or modified accrual basis, as appropriate. Budgetary control is maintained through the City's accounting and reporting system whereby monthly detail reports of budget versus actual are provided to all departments with summaries being provided to the City Council. Approval listings and documentation are provided for the City Council at each semi-monthly meeting for all checks issued by the City. In the City's accounting system, careful consideration is given to the adequacy of internal controls. These controls are designed to provide reasonable, but not necessarily absolute, assurance regarding: (1) the safeguarding of assets against loss from unauthorized use or disposition and (2) the reliability of financial records for preparing financial statements and maintaining accountability for assets. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and (2) the evaluation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. All internal control evaluation occurs within the above framework. We believe the City's internal controls adequately safeguard assets and provide reasonable assurance of proper recording of financial transactions. Capital financings for major municipal improvements are provided through (1) improvement bonds, (2) general obligation bonds, (3) tax increment bonds, or (4) revenue bonds. Internal financing of improvement projects is usually minimal and only for short periods of time. 5555 General Government Functions Actual revenues for the General Fund for 2005 were $8,801,847 which exceeded the budget by $493,927 or approximately 5.9% of the final budget. This represents a decrease of $265,706 or 2.9% over the comparable figure for 2004. The primary reasons for this negative variance were decreases in general property tax income of $231,763 compared to 2004 and licenses and permits being $133,919 lower than the prior year. Historically, the City has strived to maintain a General Fund balance of at least 50% of the property taxes and state aids. This fund balance is sufficient to support the following year budget until mid-year property taxes and state aids are received. The following table shows previous year-end General Fund balances as compared to the estimated total property tax and state aid revenues. Estimated Total Fund Balance as a Property TaxFund BalancePercent of Taxes and State AidsBeginning of Yearand Aids 1997$3,687,206$1,919,871 52.10% 1998 4,102,0822,074,239 50.60% 1999 4,088,9553,293,991 80.60% 2000 4,726,1833,943,116 83.40% 2001 4,648,1404,673,862 100.60% 2002 5,545,4004,773,376 86.10% 2003 6,475,9355,612,813 86.70% 2004 6,061,3375,917,535 97.60% 2005 5,911,8206,275,543 106.10% 2006 6,179,6006,951,062 112.50% The following table compares General Fund revenues for 2004, 2005 and the 2006 budget: Percent of Percent of Percent of Function AmountTotalAmountTotalAmountTotal General property tax $6,461,35671.26%$6,229,59370.78%$6,179,60071.72% Licenses and permits 1,294,05614.27%1,160,13713.18%1,271,50014.76% Intergovernmental revenues360,2263.97%219,5112.49%205,0002.38% Charges for services 721,4707.96%697,5327.92%659,5007.66% Fines and forfeitures 61,8010.68%104,9621.19%76,5000.89% Other revenue 168,6441.86%390,1124.44%223,0002.59% Total revenues $9,067,553100.00%$8,801,847100.00%$8,615,100100.00% 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Budget Expenditures for the General Fund totaled $8,126,328 in 2005 which represents an increase of 2.8% over the comparable figure for 2004. Expenditures were $178,842 or 2.2% under the budget for the year. There were small increases in actual expenditures of all functions not attributable to one function greater than another. 6666 The following table compares General Fund expenditures for 2004, 2005 and the 2006 budget: Percent of Percent of Percent of Function AmountTotalAmountTotalAmountTotal General government$1,751,74420.08%$1,822,35422.43%$1,895,10022.00% Public safety 2,429,46427.85%2,525,39931.07%2,747,70031.89% Public works 1,773,65520.33%1,823,56422.44%1,900,40022.06% Parks and recreation 1,620,97918.58%1,592,91119.60%1,679,10019.49% Community development325,9173.74%362,1004.46%392,8004.56% Transfers out 821,9159.42% - 0.00% - 0.00% Total expenditures$8,723,674100.00%$8,126,328100.00%$8,615,100100.00% 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Budget The following table shows previous year-end General Fund balances, as compared to the adopted expenditure budget for the following year. General FundPercent of BudgetAmountBudget 1997$5,218,756$1,919,87136.80% 19985,412,7192,074,23938.30% 19995,845,0743,293,99156.40% 20007,017,7893,943,11656.20% 20017,637,1434,673,89261.20% 20028,118,5004,773,37658.80% 20038,906,2355,612,81363.00% 20048,682,7005,917,53568.20% 20058,307,9206,275,54375.50% 20068,900,1006,951,06278.10% Fund Balance Beginning of Year Cash Management The primary financial goal of the City investment strategy is to ensure the safety of the principal invested by the City. The City only invests in instruments that are covered under Minnesota Statute 475.66. Cash balances from all City funds are pooled into the Investment Trust Fund, and investment income is then distributed on a pro-rata basis with final allocation occurring at year end. Those funds that carry temporary deficit balances are charged interest at the current net earnings rate. The total investment income allocated of $854,120 consisted of $874,828 of net interest earnings and a net decrease in fair value of $20,708. 7777 At year end, total City cash resources were held as follows: Percent of AmountTotal Demand deposits and cash$1,918,8514.18% Mutual Funds1,010,8232.20% U.S. government and agency obligations42,979,27993.62% $45,908,953100.00% Risk Management The City contracts with outside agencies to provide insurance protecting the City from potential claims such as workers' compensation, general liability and auto liability. Debt Administration Net bonded debt per capita and percentages of net debt to market value are useful indicators of a city's debt position to municipal management, citizens and investors in city bonds. Total outstanding general debt was $12,215,000 on December 31, 2005. General obligation special assessment debt, revenue bonds and tax increment debt totaled $5,200,000. Debt statistics for the City of Chanhassen at December 31, 2005 were as follows: Percent of MarketDebt AmountValuePer Capita Net Bonded Debt1998$5,647,6270.473%$308.09 19995,363,8480.430%285.92 20005,138,0450.325%252.84 20015,749,8110.321%266.68 200210,599,3600.527%473.69 200310,571,2520.463%449.38 20049,385,2320.370%400.55 20058,150,6260.290%341.54 During the past year, $2,590,000 of General Obligation Park Refunding Bonds were issued along with $5,465,000 of Water Revenue Bonds were issued in November of 2005. The City’s bond rating was upgraded to AA- by Standard & Poor’s in May of 2004. The bond rating was reaffirmed in November of 2005 with the issuance of Water Revenue Bonds and Park Refunding Bonds and again reaffirmed in May of 2006 with the issuance of $6.6 million of General Obligation Improvement Debt. 8888 Special Revenue Funds Special Revenue Funds are established to account for taxes and other revenues set aside for a specific purpose. The Contribution Fund was established to account for use of charitable gambling proceeds from the American Legion within the City. Under terms of the ordinance and state statute, the City receives 10% of the net proceeds derived from pull tab sales within the City. The 10% Fund has an available fund balance of $35,909 as of December 31, 2005. The C.A.T.V. Revenue Fund was established to improve and maintain public broadcasting capabilities on cable television within the City. Under terms of the franchise agreement, the City receives 5% of the revenues derived from cable television sales within the City. The Cable T.V. Fund has an available fund balance of $349,929 as of December 31, 2005. The Environmental Protection/Management Fund was established by the City to provide funding and accounting control for environmental projects. The fund includes allocations for recycling, composting, tree preservation and management. The Environmental Protection Fund has an available fund balance of $139,964 as of December 31, 2005 for funding these programs in the future. The Historic Preservation Fund was established by the City to accumulate resources to ensure continued financial support for maintenance and care of Pioneer Cemetery, Old St. Hubert's Church, and Old Village Hall as well as the downtown district. The fund balance of the Historic Preservation Trust Fund was $469,944 as of December 31, 2005. This fund will be closed in 2006 to a newly established Revolving Improvement Fund to pay for the city’s portion of local street improvements in future years. Capital Project Funds Capital Project Funds are so classified to account for financial resources to be used for the construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by proprietary funds). The City has historically recorded all construction projects as separate funds for ease in accounting at the time of bond issuance. In addition to construction funds, the Capital Project Funds include Tax Increment Funds, Minnesota State Aid Roads and Park Acquisition and Development Funds. The City has fund balances of $2,906,366 at December 31, 2005 in the Capital Project Funds. Enterprise Funds The City’s Enterprise Funds consist of the Water Utility Fund, the Sewer Utility Fund and the Surface Water Management Fund. With the first year implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34, the City is not presenting comparable columns in the various comparison’s and analyses for the previous year. Comparative information will be provided in future years. 9999 Operating results for 2005 are as follows: Surface Water WaterSewerManagement Operating revenues$1,703,501$1,905,206$299,445 Less operating expenses(1,015,811)(1,825,480)(415,149) Operating income (loss)687,69079,726(115,704) Less depreciation(1,069,402)(857,382)(624,572) Nonoperating revenue (expenditures)320,528352,560824,604 Transfers out(130,333)(154,258)(64,821) Capital contributions305,825476,498419,351 Change in net assets$114,308($102,856)$438,858 Generally accepted accounting principles require the depreciation of contributed assets, which results in showing net losses in some cases. However, past and present City financial practice does not include the recovery of such depreciation in the setting of rates, which would recover that cost a second time. The City's rate setting is done with reference to the working capital in the fund and anticipated system maintenance and repair and assumes continued customer contributions through special assessments for major system improvements and additions. Agency Funds Trust and Agency Funds have been established to account for cash or other assets held by the City as a trustee or agent for others. The Escrow Funds of the City account for developer and individual cash escrow deposits required by city code for various developmental activities. Net escrow deposits as of December 31, 2005, were $941,524. The Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund was established to account for assets held temporarily by the City for purposes of road right-of-way. Total value of assets being held at December 31, 2005, was $0. Capital Assets The capital assets of the City are those assets used in the performance of general governmental functions excluding the capital assets of the utility funds. As of December 31, 2005, the value of the capital assets of the City totaled $137,317,103. This amount represents the original cost of the land, buildings, machinery and equipment, other improvements, infrastructure and construction in progress and is considerably less than their present value. Depreciation of the capital assets is not recognized for the City's accounting purposes, as is customary in municipal accounting. However, depreciation of assets is recognized in the enterprise funds as required by generally accepted accounting principles. Certificate of Achievement The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Chanhassen for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. The Certificate of Achievement is a prestigious national award recognizing conformance with the highest standards for preparation of state and local government financial reports. 10101010 In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a governmental unit must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report, whose contents conform to program standards. The CAFR must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. The City of Chanhassen has received a Certificate of Achievement for the last twelve consecutive years (fiscal years ended 1992 – 2004). We believe our current report continues to conform to the Certificate of Achievement program requirements and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. Independent Audit State law provides that the city may arrange for examination of its books, records, accounts and affairs, or any part thereof, by the State Auditor, or by Certified Public Accountants. It has been a long-standing policy of the city to provide for a complete annual audit of city records by Certified Public Accountants. The auditors' opinion has been included in this report. Acknowledgments We wish to express our appreciation to the members of the City Council for their support in improving the financial condition of the City. We also want to thank the Finance Department staff and department directors for their assistance in compiling the information necessary for this report. Finally, we wish to acknowledge HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. for their assistance in preparing this report. Respectfully submitted, Greg Sticha, Finance Director 11111111 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 4temporary - 41212121212121212121212 1313131313131313131313 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 6temporary - 61414141414141414141414 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORGANIZATION December 31, 2005 Term Expires Mayor: Tom Furlong 12/31/06 Council Members: Bethany Tjornhom 12/31/08 Steve Labatt 12/31/06 Craig Peterson 12/31/08 Brian Lundquist 12/31/06 City Manager: Todd Gerhardt Appointed Finance Director: Greg Sticha Appointed Community Development Director: Kathryn Aanenson Appointed Public Works Director/City Engineer: Paul Oehme Appointed Parks and Recreation Director: Todd Hoffman Appointed 151515151515151515 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 8temporary - 81616161616161616161616 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Organization Chart City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Organization Chart CitizensCitizens AdministrationAdministration Mayor -CouncilMayor -Council Environmental Commission Environmental Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Senior Commission Senior Commission Park & Recreation Commission Park & Recreation Commission Economic Development Authority Economic Development Authority FinanceFinance Law Enforcement & Fire Administration Law Enforcement & Fire Administration Public Works Public Works Community Development Community Development Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation temporary - 9temporary - 91717171717171717171717 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 10temporary - 101818181818181818181818 II. FINANCIAL SECTION temporary - 11temporary - 111919191919191919191919 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 12temporary - 122020202020202020202020 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS As management of the City of Chanhassen, we offer readers of the City of Chanhassen’s financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which can be found in the introductory section of this report. Financial Highlights The assets of the City of Chanhassen exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $156,128,980 (net assets). Of this amount, $109,898,651 (unrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors in accordance with the City's fund designations and fiscal policies. The City’s total net assets increased by $3,498,145. As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City of Chanhassen’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $20,817,827. The amount designated or reserved through legal restrictions and City Council authorization is $14,421,545. At the end of the current fiscal year the general fund balance of $6,951,062, included $20,239 reserved, $3,199,800 designated and $3,731,023 undesignated. The City’s total debt increased by $5,658,995 during the current fiscal year, from $28,118,732 to $33,777,727, this increase was primarily due to the issuance of $5,465,000 of water revenue bonds for the construction of a new water treatment facility. Overview of the Financial Statements The management’s discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the City of Chanhassen’s basic financial statements. The City’s basic financial statements are comprised of three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government-wide financial statements. The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City of Chanhassen’s finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. The statement of net assets presents information on all of the City of Chanhassen’s assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City of Chanhassen is improving or deteriorating. 25252525 Management’s Discussion and Analysis The statement of activities presents information showing how the City’s net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g. uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government-wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City of Chanhassen that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business-type activities). The governmental activities of the City of Chanhassen include general government, public safety, public works, parks and recreation and community development. The business-type activities of the City of Chanhassen include water, sewer, and a surface water management. The government-wide financial statements can be found on statements 1 and 2 of this report. Fund Financial statements. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City of Chanhassen, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City of Chanhassen can be divided into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government’s near-term financial requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the City's near term financial decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. 26262626 Management’s Discussion and Analysis The City of Chanhassen maintains seven individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the following major funds: • General Fund • Permanent Revolving Debt • 2005A G.O. Improvement Bonds • 2006A G.O. S.A. Bonds • Capital Replacement Fund • Municipal State Aid Fund • Special Assessment Projects Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non-major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City of Chanhassen adopts an annual appropriated budget for its general and special revenue funds. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for those funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on statements 3 through 5 of this report. Proprietary funds. The City of Chanhassen maintains three enterprise funds as a part of its proprietary fund type. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business-type activities in the governmental-wide financial statements. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government-wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the following funds: • Water • Sewer • Surface Water Management The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found on statements 6 through 8 of this report. Fiduciary funds. Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for benefit of parties outside the government. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government-wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support the City of Chanhassen’s own program. The accounting used for fiduciary funds is much like that used for proprietary funds. The basic fiduciary fund financial statement can be found on statement 9 of this report. 27272727 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government–wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found following statement 9 of this report. Other information. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with non- major governmental funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information on budgetary comparisons. Combining and individual fund statements and schedules can be found on statement 11 through statement 23 of this report. Government-Wide Financial Analysis As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government's financial position. In the case of the City of Chanhassen, assets exceeded liabilities by $156,128,980 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. The largest portion of the City of Chanhassen net assets ($109,898,651 or 70.38% percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g. land, buildings, machinery, and equipment) net of any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City of Chanhassen uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City of Chanhassen’s investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 'S NET ASSETS 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 Current and other assets $28,054,976$23,120,523 $24,877,282$22,435,474$52,932,258$45,555,997 Capital assets 87,884,10392,488,39253,024,96749,488,555140,909,070141,976,947 Total assets $115,939,079$115,608,915$77,902,249$71,924,029$193,841,328$187,532,944 Long-term liabilities outstanding $16,010,185$15,664,047$14,900,498$10,117,401$30,910,683$25,781,448 Other liabilities 5,047,0035,336,312 1,754,6621,009,8496,801,6656,346,161 Total liabilities $21,057,188$21,000,359$16,655,160$11,127,250$37,712,348$32,127,609 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $72,418,684$77,583,392$37,479,967$38,888,555$109,898,651$116,471,947 Restricted 11,223,5496,331,268 - - 11,223,5496,331,268 Unrestricted 11,239,65810,693,896 23,767,12221,908,22435,006,78032,602,120 Total net assets $94,881,891$94,608,556$61,247,089$60,796,779$156,128,980$155,405,335 Governmental ActivitiesBusiness-Type Activities Totals 28282828 Management’s Discussion and Analysis A portion of the of the City of Chanhassen’s net assets represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net assets ($35,006,780) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Chanhassen is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net assets, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business-type activities. Governmental Activities Total net assets of the City’s governmental activities increased $273,335, or 29%. This change was primarily due to the increase in restricted net assets of $4.8 million. The increase in restricted net assets was from refunding the 1998A G.O. Park Bonds and special assessment revenue that was recognized greater than the prior year. The increase in restricted net assets was from transfers it made to close out the 1998D GO Bond and the 1998F GO Refunding bond funds and the McGlynn TIF District Fund. Liabilities were comparable to the prior year increasing only $56,829 or .3%. 29292929 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Business-type Activities The net assets of the City’s business-type activities increased by $450,310, or .74%. This increase was mainly from capital contributions from governmental funds. City of Chanhassen 's Changes in Net Assets 200520042005200420052004 Revenues: Program revenues: Charges for services$3,522,510$2,976,243$3,908,152$3,670,930$7,430,662$6,647,173 Operating grants and contributions305,670345,3411,6206,381307,290351,722 Capital grants and contributions5,080,5122,633,9161,961,1223,528,2707,041,6346,162,186 General revenues: Property taxes9,451,1418,398,790 - - 9,451,1418,398,790 Tax increment collections675,1174,623,927 - - 675,1174,623,927 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs45,45555,879 - - 45,45555,879 Unrestricted investment earnings387,370164,712466,750255,510854,120420,222 Miscellaneous93,792233,02946,100255,279139,892488,308 Gain on sale of land23,795540,646 - - 23,795540,646 Total revenues19,585,36219,972,4836,383,7447,716,37025,969,10627,688,853 Expenses: General government4,518,3552,338,485 - - 4,518,3552,338,485 Public safety2,653,3042,618,307 - - 2,653,3042,618,307 Public works4,915,4354,955,598 - - 4,915,4354,955,598 Parks and recreation2,867,3642,674,954 - - 2,867,3642,674,954 Community development595,8782,027,713 - - 595,8782,027,713 Interest on long-term debt505,367822,047 - - 505,367822,047 Water - - 2,656,3811,985,9082,656,3811,985,908 Sewer - - 2,719,1562,686,1462,719,1562,686,146 Surface water management - - 1,039,721957,0841,039,721957,084 Total expenses 16,055,70315,437,1046,415,2585,629,13822,470,96121,066,242 Increase (decrease) in net assets before transfers3,529,6594,535,379(31,514)2,087,2323,498,1456,622,611 Transfers(481,824)(96,195)481,82496,195 - - Discount on debt issue - (10,387) - - - (10,387) Increase in net assets3,047,8354,428,797450,3102,183,4273,498,1456,612,224 Net assets - January 1, as previously reported94,608,55691,467,11260,796,77958,829,823155,405,335150,296,935 Prior period adjustment(2,774,500)(1,287,353) - (216,471)(2,774,500)(1,503,824) Net assets - January 1, as restated91,834,05690,179,75960,796,77958,613,352152,630,835148,793,111 Net assets - December 31$94,881,891$94,608,556$61,247,089$60,796,779$156,128,980$155,405,335 Governmental ActivitiesBusiness-Type ActivitiesTotals Governmental Activities Revenues Revenues for the City’s governmental activities decreased by $387,121, or 1.98%. There were several line items which fluctuated to give the net decrease. The Tax increment collections decreased by $4.0 million due to the closing of the downtown TIF district in 2004, which did result in an increase in property taxes collected but not proportionate to the increment reduction. The increase in the capital contributions was primarily from an additional $2.7 million in special assessment revenues recognized in 2005. In addition in 2004 the City sold property located at Old Village hall and Chanhassen Bowl and did not have a similar land sale in 2005. The net result of all these and some other smaller items resulted in a net decrease in revenues for governmental activities of $387,121. 30303030 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Expenses Expenses for the City’s governmental activities increased by $618,599, or .000001%. Expenses for General Government activities increased by $2.2 million while expenses for Community Development decreased by $1.4 million, resulting in the net increase. The decrease in Community Development expenses was due to large developer agreement payments which were finalized in 2004 resulting in $1.4 million less in similar developer agreement payments in 2005. The increase in General Government expenses was from almost $1.0 million in TIF increment which had to be returned to other agencies, and additional capital and construction expenses more than in the prior year. Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and expenses: 18.0% 48.3% 25.9% 1.6% 3.4% Governmental Activities - Revenues Charges for services Operating grants and contributions Capital grants and contributions Property taxes Tax increment collections Miscellaneous .5% Unrestricted investment earnings 2.0% Gain on sale of land .1%Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs .2% 31313131 Management’s Discussion and Analysis 36.4% 2.8% 27.1% 17.1% 2.0% 14.6% Governmental Activities - Expenses General government Public safety Public works Interest on long- term debt Parks and recreation Community development Business-Type Activities Revenues Revenues for the City’s business-type activities decreased by $1,332,626, or 17.3%. This decrease was from a reduction in the amount of capital assets contributed by governmental activities compared to the amount contributed in 2004. Expenses The City’s expenses for business-type activities increased by $786,120 or 13.9%. The largest portion of this increase was due to the addition of the 2004B water revenue bonds and the related additional $323,000 in interest paid in the first year’s payment of those bonds compared to 2004. In addition there were small increased capital costs in the enterprise funds compared to the prior year. 32323232 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Below are specific graphs showing the business-type activities revenue and expense comparisons: 0.7% 30.7% 61.3% 7.3% Business-Type Activities - Revenues Charges for services Capital grants and contributions Unrestricted investment earnings Miscellaneous 16.2% 42.4% 41.4% Business-Type Activities - Expenses Sewer Water Surface water management 33333333 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Financial Analysis of the Government's Funds Governmental Funds. The focus of the City of Chanhassen’s governmental funds is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City of Chanhassen’s financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as useful measure of a government’s net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Chanhassen’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $20,817,827. Approximately 38.8 percent of this total amount ($7,803,990) constitutes unreserved, but designated, fund balance. The reserved portion of the fund balance ($6,617,555) has already been committed 1) to provide for prepaid items ($20,762), 2) for future programs ($35,909), and 3) to pay debt service ($6,560,884). The general fund increased by $675,519 in 2005, which was due to higher than budgeted property tax collections, a larger than budgeted collection of engineering administrative fees of almost $100,000, and almost $200,000 in spending reductions in various general fund departments from the original budget. The Permanent Revolving debt service fund increased by $566,385, this was due from special assessment collections and transfers in from closed funds. The Capital Replacement Fund decreased by $419,497, this was due to unspent bond equipment certificates issued in 2004 but not spent until 2005. The Municipal State Aid Fund decreased by $121,410, this was a relatively insignificant decrease and not attributed to one identified event in that fund. The Special Assessment Projects Construction Fund decreased by $1,111,287, this was caused by 2005 MUSA area construction costs that are not offset with revenues as of December 31, 2005. The special assessment receivable related to this project was recorded in the corresponding debt service fund, and the bond proceeds were not received until June of 2006, resulting in the deficit position of the fund as of December 31, 2005. The nonmajor special revenue funds decreased by $27,732 this was a relatively insignificant decrease and not attributed to one identified event in that fund. The nonmajor debt service funds increased by $2,609,674, which was due to a refunding of the 1998 A G.O. Park Bonds which had proceeds received in November of 2005 and the new debt was issued in February of 2006, resulting in a temporary fund balance surplus in the 1998A G.O. Park Bond fund. The nonmajor capital project funds increased by $1,346,407, primarily due to park dedication revenue in excess of expenditures of $850,000 in 2005. 34343434 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Proprietary funds. The City of Chanhassen’s proprietary fund provides the same type of information found in the government-wide financial statements, but in more detail. The unrestricted net assets in the respective proprietary funds are water $25,228,167, sewer $19,467,280 and surface water management $16,551,642. The water and surface water management funds had increases in net assets in 2005 of $823,156 and $438,858, respectively. The sewer fund had a decrease in net assets in 2005 of $811,704. Budgetary Highlights General Fund The expenditure budget was amended $50,000 to provide for incremental changes in activity that occurred during the year. This revision is done in the fall of the year when the City prepares the next year’s budget. Budgetary Variances – Revenues The positive general fund revenue variance of $493,927 was due to higher than budgeted engineering administrative fees generated from future construction and development projects being planned in the city. Budgetary Variances – Expenses The City’s expenses for the general fund had a positive variance of $178,842 that was not attributable to one department or expense, but rather an effort of all departments to reduce spending in general fund departments as much as possible in 2005. 35353535 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. The City of Chanhassen’s, investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of December 31, 2005, amounts to $140,909,070 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, infrastructure, machinery and equipment. City of Chanhassen’s Capital Assets (Net of Depreciation) Balance Balance December 31, December 31, Primary Government 2004AdjustmentsIncreaseDecreaseTransfers2005 Governmental activities: Capital assets - not depreciated: Land $19,453,629($2,774,500)$5,048$ - -$ $16,684,177 Construction in progress 1,570,392(819,904)2,477,397 - (2,690,280)537,605 Total capital assets not being depreciated21,024,021(3,594,404)2,482,445 0(2,690,280)17,221,782 Capital assets - being depreciated: Buildings and structures 15,214,659 - - (10,690) - 15,203,969 Machinery and equipment 5,388,909 - 243,248(44,450) - 5,587,707 Other Improvements 3,114,038 - 398,241(106,391) - 3,405,888 Infrastructure 92,634,420 - 573,057 - 2,690,28095,897,757 Total capital assets being depreciated 116,352,026 01,214,546(161,531)2,690,280120,095,321 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and structures 2,627,525 - 306,694(8,018) - 2,926,201 Machinery and equipment 2,960,216 - 422,421(40,439) - 3,342,198 Other Improvements 861,336 - 234,042(59,516)1,035,862 Infrastructure 38,438,578 - 3,690,161 - 42,128,739 Total accumulated depreciation 44,887,655 04,653,318(107,973)049,433,000 Governmental activities capital assets - net 92,488,392(3,594,404)(956,327)(53,558)087,884,103 Balance Balance December 31, December 31, Primary Government 2004AdjustmentsIncreaseDecreaseTransfers2005 Business-type activities: Capital assets - not depreciated: Land $35,988$ - $ - $ - $ - $35,988 Construction in progress 1,194,560819,9044,861,646 - (2,665,433)4,210,677 Total capital assets not being depreciated 1,230,548819,9044,861,646 0(2,665,433)4,246,665 Capital assets - being depreciated: Machinery and equipment 2,257,823 - 24,448 - - 2,282,271 Other Improvements 77,839,113 - 381,771 - 2,665,43380,886,317 Total capital assets being depreciated 80,096,936 0406,219 02,665,43383,168,588 Less accumulated depreciation for: Machinery and equipment 696,680 - 70,678 - - 767,358 Other Improvements 31,142,249 - 2,480,679 - - 33,622,928 Total accumulated depreciation 31,838,929 02,551,357 0 034,390,286 Business-type activities capital assets - net 49,488,555819,9042,716,508 0 053,024,967 Total capital assets - net $141,976,947 ($2,774,500)$1,760,181($53,558)$0$140,909,070 Additional information on the City of Chanhassen’s capital assets can be found in Note 4. 36363636 Management’s Discussion and Analysis Long-term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Chanhassen had total bonds payable outstanding of $32,960,000, an increase of $5,500,000 from 2004. $12,215,000 is for general obligation bonds and $3,325,000 is for special assessment debt which is supported in part by special assessments. Also outstanding is $15,545,000 of revenue bonds which financed capital investment for the water, sewer and storm sewer operations. Additional long-term debt in the amount of $712,307 for compensated absences was also outstanding at the end of 2005. City of Chanhassen’s Outstanding Debt 200520042005200420052004 General obligation bonds$12,215,000$10,710,000$ - $ - $12,215,000$10,710,000 Revenue bonds705,000785,00015,545,00010,600,00016,250,00011,385,000 Tax increment bonds1,170,0001,170,000 - - 1,170,0001,170,000 General improvement bonds 3,325,0004,195,000 - - 3,325,0004,195,000 Loan payable for highway construction105,420 - - - 105,420 - Compensated absences620,604580,61791,70378,115712,307658,732 Total$18,141,024$17,440,617$15,636,703$10,678,115$33,777,727$28,118,732 TotalsBusiness-Type ActivitiesGovernmental Activities The City’s bond rating was upgraded to AA- by Standard & Poor’s in May of 2004. The bond rating was reaffirmed in November of 2005 with the issuance of $5.5 million of Water Revenue Bonds and $2.5 million of park Refunding Bonds, and again in May of 2006 with the issuance of $6.6 million of General Obligation Improvement Debt. State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a Minnesota city may issue to 2% of total Estimated Market Value. The current debt limitation for the City of Chanhassen is $56,177,758. Of the City's outstanding debt, $9,150,626 is counted within the statutory limitation. Additional information on the City of Chanhassen’s long-term debt can be found in Note 5. Requests for information. This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City of Chanhassen’s finances for all those with an interest in the government’s finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Director of Finance, P.O. Box 147, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. 37373737 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 30temporary - 303838383838383838383838 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS temporary - 29temporary - 293737393939393939393939 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 30temporary - 303838404040404040404040 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Statement 1 December 31, 2005 GovernmentalBusiness-Type Assets:ActivitiesActivities20052004 Cash and investments$21,380,250$23,587,179$44,967,429$39,155,593 Accrued interest receivable131,140159,117290,257202,214 Due from other governmental units1,435,26118,2621,453,5232,405,556 Accounts receivable - net222,977762,709985,686939,196 Property taxes receivable371,662 - 371,662461,779 Tax increment receivable - - - 2,472 Special assessments receivable4,492,924333,4654,826,3892,339,078 Prepaid items20,7622,50623,26824,032 Inventories - at cost - 14,04414,04426,077 Capital assets - net : Nondepreciable17,221,7824,246,66521,468,44722,254,569 Depreciable70,662,32148,778,302119,440,623119,722,378 Total assets115,939,07977,902,249193,841,328187,532,944 Liabilities: Accounts payable466,998129,003596,001285,710 Accrued interest payable282,538187,311469,849507,199 Contracts payable556,652650,3061,206,958400,162 Deposits payable 20,438 - 20,43826,342 Due to other governmental units38,99124,83963,830181,844 Salaries payable171,75926,997198,756183,657 Unearned revenue1,378,789 - 1,378,7892,423,964 Compensated absences payable: Due within one year75,83811,20687,04487,282 Due in more than one year544,76680,498625,264571,449 Loan payable: Due in more than one year105,419 - 105,419 - Bonds payable: Due within one year4,935,000725,0005,660,0002,250,001 Due in more than one year12,480,00014,820,00027,300,00025,209,999 Total liabilities21,057,18816,655,16037,712,34832,127,609 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt72,418,68437,479,967109,898,651116,471,947 Restricted for: Debt service10,174,502 - 10,174,5024,988,425 Tax increment purposes1,049,047 - 1,049,0471,342,843 Unrestricted11,239,65823,767,12235,006,78032,602,120 Total net assets$94,881,891$61,247,089$156,128,980$155,405,335 Primary Government Totals The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 414141 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 Charges For ExpensesServices Functions/Programs Primary government: Government activities: General government$4,518,355$576,484 Public safety2,653,3041,235,703 Public works4,915,435387,880 Parks and recreation2,867,3641,269,373 Community development595,87853,070 Interest on long-term debt505,367 - Total government activities16,055,7033,522,510 Business-type activities: Water 2,656,3811,703,501 Sewer 2,719,1561,905,206 Surface Water Management1,039,721299,445 Total business-type activities6,415,2583,908,152 Total primary government$22,470,961$7,430,662 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 424242 Statement 2 OperatingCapital Grants andGrants andGovernmentalBusiness-Type ContributionsContributionsActivitiesActivities20052004 $ - $51,640($3,890,231)$ - ($3,890,231)($1,389,848) 199,373 - (1,218,228) - (1,218,228)(1,095,607) 106,2975,028,872607,614 - 607,614(1,923,262) - - (1,597,991) - (1,597,991)(2,276,203) - - (542,808) - (542,808)(1,974,637) - - (505,367) - (505,367)(822,047) 305,6705,080,512(7,147,011)0(7,147,011)(9,481,604) - 601,667 - (351,213)(351,213)922,575 - 354,701 - (459,249)(459,249)273,156 1,6201,004,754 - 266,098266,098380,712 1,6201,961,1220(544,364)(544,364)1,576,443 $307,290$7,041,634(7,147,011)(544,364)(7,691,375)(7,905,161) General revenues: Property taxes9,451,141 - 9,451,1418,398,790 Tax increment collections675,117 - 675,1174,623,927 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs45,455 - 45,45555,879 Unrestricted investment earnings387,370466,750854,120420,222 Miscellaneous93,79246,100139,892477,921 Gain on sale of property23,795 - 23,795540,646 Transfers(481,824)481,824 - - Total general revenues and transfers10,194,846994,67411,189,52014,517,385 Change in net assets3,047,835450,3103,498,1456,612,224 Net assets - beginning, as previously reported94,608,55660,796,779155,405,335150,296,935 Prior period adjustment(2,774,500) - (2,774,500)(1,503,824) Net assets - beginning, as restated91,834,05660,796,779152,630,835148,793,111 Net assets - ending$94,881,891$61,247,089$156,128,980$155,405,335 Totals Program Revenues Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Net Assets Primary Government The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 434343 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2005 Permanent2005A G.O.2006A G.O. RevolvingImprovementImprovement GeneralDebt (300)Bonds (364)Bonds (366) Assets: Cash and investments$6,939,224$3,373,366$ - $ - Restricted cash and investments - - - - Accrued interest receivable43,22824,958352 - Due from other governmental units105,425 - - - Accounts receivable - net17,624 - - - Interfund receivable - 60,982 - - Property taxes receivable309,0464,379 - - Tax increment receivable - - - - Special assessments receivable - 345,6091,623,5991,533,495 Prepaid items20,239 - - - Total assets$7,434,786$3,809,294$1,623,951$1,533,495 Liabilities and Fund Balances Liabilities: Interfund payable$ - $ - $7,164$ - Accounts payable114,328 - - - Contracts payable - - - - Deposits payable 400 - - - Due to other governmental units38,912 - - - Salaries payable167,525 - - - Deferred revenue162,559344,8951,623,5991,533,495 Total liabilities483,724344,8951,630,7631,533,495 Fund balances: Reserved for: Prepaid items20,239 - - - Future programs - - - - Debt service - - - - Unreserved reported in: Designated: General Fund3,199,800 - - - Special Revenue Funds - - - - Capital Project Funds - - - - Undesignated reported in: General Fund3,731,023 - - - Special Revenue Funds - - - - Debt Service Funds - 3,464,399(6,812) - Capital Project Funds - - - - Total fund balances6,951,0623,464,399(6,812)0 Total liabilities and fund balances$7,434,786$3,809,294$1,623,951$1,533,495 Fund balance reported above Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources, and therefore, are not reported in the funds Other long-term assets are not available to pay for current- period expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds. Long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds Net assets of governmental activities The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 444444 Statement 3 CapitalMunicipalSpecial OtherIntra ReplacementState Aid AssessmentGovernmentalActivity Fund (400)Fund (415)Projects (600)FundsEliminations20052004 $613,933$125,554$ - $10,328,173$ - $21,380,250$17,864,780 - - - - - - - 9,8192,288 - 50,495 - 131,14097,047 - 1,327,859 - 1,977 - 1,435,2612,403,175 48,865 - - 156,488 - 222,977219,181 350,484 - - 108,252(519,718) - - 24,857 - - 33,380 - 371,662461,779 - - - - - - 2,472 - - 251,159739,062 - 4,492,9242,050,564 - - - 523 - 20,76221,526 $1,047,958$1,455,701$251,159$11,418,350($519,718)$28,054,976$23,120,524 $ - $ - $310,865$201,689($519,718)$ - $ - 43,7801,754236,49870,638 - 466,998200,839 - - 516,33240,320 - 556,652112,183 - - - 20,038 - 20,43826,342 - - - 79 - 38,991176,888 - - - 4,234 - 171,759161,821 - 1,327,859250,842739,062 - 5,982,3114,515,873 43,7801,329,6131,314,5371,076,060(519,718)7,237,1495,193,946 - - - 523 - 20,76221,526 - - - 35,909 - 35,90919,735 - - - 6,560,884 - 6,560,8843,887,006 - - - - - 3,199,8003,125,910 - - - 489,370 - 489,370533,276 1,004,178126,088 - 2,984,554 - 4,114,8203,978,818 - - - - - 3,731,0233,128,630 - - - - - - 1,089,942 - - - (53,818) - 3,403,7693,035,546 - - (1,063,378)324,868 - (738,510)(893,811) 1,004,178126,088(1,063,378)10,342,290020,817,82717,926,578 $1,047,958$1,455,701$251,159$11,418,350($519,718)$28,054,976$23,120,524 $20,817,827$17,926,578 87,884,10392,488,392 4,603,5222,091,909 (18,423,561)(17,898,323) $94,881,891$94,608,556 Totals Governmental Funds The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 454545 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 Permanent2005A G.O. 2006A G.O. RevolvingImprovement BondsImprovement Bonds GeneralDebt (300)(364)(366) Revenues: General property taxes$6,229,593$ - $ - $ - Tax increment collections - - - - Licenses and permits1,160,137 - - - Intergovernmental219,511 - - - Special assessments - 480,802 - - Charges for services697,53211,350 - - Fines and forfeits104,962 - - - Investment income125,29277,9881,289 - Contributions and donations37,758 - - - Other227,062 - - - Total revenues8,801,847 570,140 1,289 0 Expenditures: Current: General government1,822,354 - - - Public safety2,525,134 - - - Public works1,823,564 - - - Parks and recreation1,592,911 - - - Community development362,100 - - - Interfund interest - - - - Capital outlay: General government - - - - Public safety 265 - - - Public works - - - - Parks and recreation - - - - Debt service: Principal - - - - Interest and paying agent fees - - 8,101 - Bond issuance costs - - - - Special assessment payments - - - - Other - 3,755 - - Total expenditures 8,126,328 3,755 8,101 0 Revenues over (under) expenditures 675,519 566,385 (6,812)0 Other financing sources (uses): Bonds issued - - - - Loans issued - - - - Transfers in - - - - Transfers out - - - - Bond discount - - - - Proceeds-sale of capital assets - - - - Total other financing sources (uses)0 0 0 0 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 675,519 566,385 (6,812)0 Fund balance - January 1, as previously reported 6,275,5433,035,546 - - Prior period adjustment - (137,532) - - Fund balance - January 1, as restated 6,275,5432,898,014 0 0 Fund balance - December 31 $6,951,062$3,464,399 ($6,812)$0 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 4646464646464646 Statement 4 CapitalMunicipalSpecialOtherIntra ReplacementState Aid AssessmentGovernmentalActivity Fund (400)Fund (415)Projects (600)FundsEliminations20052004 $800,000$ - $ - $2,387,934$ - $9,417,527$8,443,464 - - - 675,798 - 675,7984,917,923 - - - 1,005,885 - 2,166,0221,892,579 - 104,320858,16662,659 - 1,244,6561,013,704 - - 179,827453,293 - 1,113,9222,262,731 - 616 - 154,460 - 863,958943,744 - - - - - 104,96261,801 29,4736,332 - 156,519(9,523)387,370164,712 - - - 33,440 - 71,19824,749 3,0574,950 - 195,102 - 430,171290,629 832,530 116,218 1,037,993 5,125,090 (9,523)16,475,584 20,016,036 342,66514,628299,685836,481 - 3,315,8132,203,607 22,542 - - - - 2,547,6762,461,410 - - - - - 1,823,5641,773,655 26,573 - - - - 1,619,4841,622,199 - - - - - 362,100326,134 - - 3,15917,696(20,855) - - 311,250 - - - - 311,250363,309 10,000 - - - - 10,26599,872 138,729 - 2,195,848 - - 2,334,5771,787,737 424,063 - - 38,731 - 462,794615,207 - - - 2,035,000 - 2,035,0007,752,000 - - - 683,129 - 691,230687,299 - - - - - - 29,317 - - - 230,353 - 230,3531,660,088 - - - 893,768 - 897,52311,046 1,275,822 14,628 2,498,692 4,735,158 (20,855)16,641,629 21,392,880 (443,292)101,590 (1,460,699)389,932 11,332 (166,045)(1,376,844) - - - 2,590,000 - 2,590,0003,240,000 - - - 105,419 - 105,419 - - - 349,412911,868(923,200)338,080(54,242) - (223,000) - (688,868)911,868 - - - - - - - - (10,387) 23,795 - - - - 23,795963,290 23,795 (223,000)349,412 2,918,419 (11,332)3,057,294 4,138,661 (419,497)(121,410)(1,111,287)3,308,351 0 2,891,249 2,761,817 1,423,675247,49847,9096,896,407 - 17,926,57815,164,761 - - - 137,532 - - - 1,423,675247,49847,9097,033,939017,926,57815,164,761 $1,004,178$126,088($1,063,378)$10,342,290$0$20,817,827$17,926,578 Governmental Funds Totals The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 4747474747474747 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES,Statement 5 EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 20052004 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities (page 42) are different because: Net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds (page 46)$2,891,249$2,761,817 Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which capital outlays differ from depreciation in the current period.(1,534,432)(1,614,824) The net effect of various miscellaneous transactions involving capital assets is to increase net assets.(295,357)1,092,014 Revenues in the statement of activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds.2,511,613(1,718,511) The issuance of long-term debt (e.g., bonds, leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long-term debt and related items.(660,419)4,480,000 Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds.135,181(154,099) In the statement of activities, only the gain on the sale of land is reported. However, in the governmental funds, the proceeds from the sale increase financial resources. Thus the change in net assets differs from the change in fund balance by the cost of the capital assets sold. - (417,600) Change in net assets of governmental activities (page 42)$3,047,835$4,428,797 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 484848 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Statement 6 PROPRIETARY FUNDS December 31, 2005 Surface Water Assets:Water SewerManagement20052004 Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents$15,614,571$3,996,583$3,976,025$23,587,179$21,290,813 Accrued interest receivable97,99532,71528,407159,117105,168 Due from other governmental units18,262 - - 18,2622,381 Accounts receivable308,329396,78757,593762,709720,015 Special assessments receivable75,66018,950 - 94,61020,335 Connection charges receivable136,47597,937 - 234,412255,215 Prepaid items1,1901,1901262,5062,506 Water meter inventory14,044 - - 14,04426,077 Total current assets16,266,526 4,544,162 4,062,151 24,872,839 22,422,510 Noncurrent assets: Deferred connection charges2,9751,468 - 4,44312,964 Capital assets: Land35,988 - - 35,98835,988 Machinery and equipment1,802,023480,246 - 2,282,2692,257,821 Other improvements33,224,73328,303,48019,358,10480,886,31777,839,114 Construction in progress3,978,078232,599 - 4,210,6771,194,560 Total capital assets39,040,822 29,016,325 19,358,104 87,415,251 81,327,483 Less: Allowance for depreciation(14,384,412)(13,160,208)(6,845,664)(34,390,284)(31,838,928) Net capital assets24,656,41015,856,11712,512,44053,024,96749,488,555 Total noncurrent assets24,659,38515,857,58512,512,44053,029,41049,501,519 Total assets40,925,91120,401,74716,574,59177,902,24971,924,029 Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable117,6836,1545,166129,00384,871 Accrued interest payable172,48814,823 - 187,31149,494 Contracts payable650,306 - - 650,306287,979 Due to other governmental units14,68910,150 - 24,8394,956 Salaries payable13,1038,8655,02926,99721,836 Bonds payable - due within one year525,000200,000 - 725,000550,363 Total current liabilities1,493,269 239,992 10,195 1,743,456 999,499 Noncurrent liabilities: Bonds payable - due in more than one year14,165,000655,000 - 14,820,00010,049,637 Compensated absences payable 39,47539,47512,75491,70478,114 Total noncurrent liabilities14,204,475 694,475 12,754 14,911,704 10,127,751 Total liabilities15,697,744934,46722,94916,655,16011,127,250 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt9,966,41015,001,11712,512,44037,479,96738,888,555 Unrestricted15,261,7574,466,1634,039,20223,767,12221,908,224 Total net assets$25,228,167$19,467,280$16,551,642$61,247,089$60,796,779 Totals The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. temporary - 39temporary - 394747494949494949494949 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND Statement 7 CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 Surface Water WaterSewerManagement20052004 Operating revenues: Charges for services$1,629,544$1,871,321$294,952$3,795,817$3,528,886 Penalties and other73,95733,8854,493112,335142,044 Total operating revenues1,703,501 1,905,206 299,445 3,908,152 3,670,930 Operating expenses: Personal services396,836268,366153,727818,929742,442 Materials and supplies109,64349,32413,416172,383241,404 Contractual services: MCES - 1,310,784 - 1,310,7841,203,666 Other414,514104,981248,006767,501608,111 Repairs and maintenance94,81892,025 - 186,84367,098 Depreciation1,069,402857,382624,5722,551,3562,587,892 Total operating expenses2,085,213 2,682,862 1,039,721 5,807,796 5,450,613 Operating income (loss)(381,712)(777,656)(740,276)(1,899,644)(1,779,683) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Investment income305,86888,97783,237478,082309,752 Connection charges431,751224,823738,9221,395,4961,335,594 Intergovernmental - - 1,6201,6206,381 Special assessment revenue129,97053,886 - 183,856284,011 Interest and fiscal charges(571,168)(36,294) - (607,462)(178,525) Miscellaneous 24,10721,16882546,100255,279 Total nonoperating revenues (expenses)320,528 352,560 824,604 1,497,692 2,012,492 Income before contributions and transfers(61,184)(425,096)84,328 (401,952)232,809 Transfer out (130,333)(154,258)(64,821)(349,412) - Capital contributions305,825476,498419,3511,201,6741,950,618 Change in net assets114,308 (102,856)438,858 450,310 2,183,427 Net assets - January 1, as previously reported 24,405,01120,278,98416,112,78460,796,77958,829,823 Prior period adjustment708,848(708,848) - - (216,471) Net assets - January 1, as restated25,113,85919,570,13616,112,78460,796,77958,613,352 Net assets - December 31$25,228,167$19,467,280$16,551,642$61,247,089$60,796,779 Amount reported for business-type activities reported above$61,247,089$60,796,779 Transfer in of capital assets from governmental activities819,90441,953 Capital contributions shown above(819,904)(41,953) Transfer in of interfund interest from governmental activities11,33254,242 Investment income reported above(11,332)(54,242) Net assets of business-type activities$61,247,089$60,796,779 Totals The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 505050505050505050 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 8 PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 Surface Water WaterSewerManagement20052004 Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users$1,637,981$1,877,364$281,765$3,797,110$3,852,600 Payment to suppliers13,465(1,753,859)(403,083)(2,143,477)(2,208,974) Payment to employees(390,698)(265,139) - (655,837)(625,255) Miscellaneous revenue (expense)24,10721,16882546,100255,279 Net cash flows from operating activities1,284,855(120,466)(120,493)1,043,8961,273,650 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Transfers out(130,333)(154,258)(64,821)(349,412) - Operating grant - - 1,6201,6206,381 Net cash flows from noncapital financing activities(130,333)(154,258)(63,201)(347,792)6,381 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition of capital assets(4,270,283)(615,811) - (4,886,094)(1,119,468) Connection charges431,751224,823738,9221,395,4961,335,594 Special assessment revenue129,97053,886 - 183,856284,011 Special assessment payments - - - - - Net proceeds from long term debt5,465,000 - - 5,465,0007,930,000 Bond issuance cost(36,404) - - (36,404)(38,447) Principal paid on bonds(290,000)(230,000) - (520,000)(505,000) Interest and fiscal charges(393,353)(39,888) - (433,241)(155,432) Net cash flows from capital and related financing activities1,036,681(606,990)738,9221,168,6137,731,258 Cash flows from investing activities: Investment income261,20987,20383,237431,649258,664 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents2,452,412(794,511)638,4652,296,3669,269,953 Cash and cash equivalents - January 113,162,1594,791,0943,337,56021,290,81312,020,860 Cash and cash equivalents - December 31$15,614,571 $3,996,583 $3,976,025 $23,587,179 $21,290,813 Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Operating income (loss) ($381,712)($777,656)($740,276)($1,899,644)($1,779,683) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Miscellaneous expense24,10721,16882546,100255,279 Depreciation1,069,402857,382624,5722,551,3562,587,892 Loss on disposal - - - - 67,137 Changes in assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in receivables(65,520)(27,842)(17,680)(111,042) - Decrease (increase) in prepaid items - - - - 181,670 Decrease (increase) in inventory12,033 - - 12,0336,187 Increase (decrease) in payables626,545(193,518)12,066445,093(44,832) Total adjustments1,666,567 657,190 619,783 2,943,540 3,053,333 Net cash provided by operating activities$1,284,855($120,466)($120,493)$1,043,896$1,273,650 Noncash investing, capital and financing activities: Water system assets in the amount of $305,825 and $560,747 were contributed to the Sewer Fund in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Sewer system assets in the amount of $476,498and $820,708 were contributed to the Water Fund in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Surface water management system assets in the amount of $419,351and $569,163 were contributed to the Surface Water Fund in 2005 and 2004, respectively. Totals The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 515151 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Statement 9 FIDUCIARY FUNDS December 31, 2005 20052004 Assets Cash and investments$941,524$915,178 Accounts receivable - - Due from other governments - - Investment in property - 2,285,889 Total assets$941,524$3,201,067 Liabilities Accounts payable $ - $100 Other payables - - Escrow deposits payable941,524897,467 Notes payable - 2,303,500 Total liabilities$941,524$3,201,067 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. temporary - 42temporary - 425050525252525252525252 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Note 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The City of Chanhassen was incorporated in 1967 and operates under the State of Minnesota Statutory Plan B form of government. The governing body consists of a five member City council elected by voters of the City. The financial statements of the City of Chanhassen have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as applied to governmental units by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies. A. FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY In accordance with GASB pronouncements and accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the financial statements of the reporting entity should include those of the City of Chanhassen (the primary government) and its component units. The component unit discussed below is included in the City’s reporting entity because of the significance of its operational or financial relationships with the City. COMPONENT UNITS In conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the financial statements of the component unit have been included in the financial report as a blended component unit. Pursuant to the authorization of Minnesota Statutes Section 469.094, on April 28, 1997 the City of Chanhassen transferred to the Economic Development Authority of the City of Chanhassen all activities, programs, operations, and authority of the existing City of Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). The Economic Development Authority (EDA), an entity legally separate from the City, is governed by a board which is substantially the same as the City Council. The City is in a relationship of financial benefit or burden with the EDA. Separate financial statements for the EDA are not prepared. JOINTLY GOVERNED ORGANIZATIONS Southwest Area Transit Commission. The City, in conjunction with the Cities of Eden Prairie and Chaska, has agreed to establish the Southwest Area Transit Commission (the Commission). The purpose of the Commission is to provide alternative methods of public transit service to the three cities. The Commission’s board is composed of two commissioners from each of the cities. Western Area Fire Training Association (WAFTA). The City is a member of a joint powers group along with ten other communities. WAFTA operates a fire training facility in western Carver County. The site has been identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as contaminated, potentially requiring clean-up. The dollar amount of the clean-up cost is not determinable. Additionally, the City of Chanhassen’s liability, if any, is not determinable. 535353 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 B. GOVERNMENT-WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The government-wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of changes in net assets) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the primary government and its component units. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business-type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or business-type activity are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or business-type activity. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or business-type activity and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or business-type activity. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues are reported instead of general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds, even though the latter are excluded from the government-wide financial statements. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the proprietary fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. The City’s only fiduciary funds are agency funds. Agency funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the government considers all revenues, except reimbursement grants, to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Reimbursement grants are considered available if they are collected within one year of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. 545454 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenues, charges for services and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the government. The government reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the government’s primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Permanent Revolving Debt Fund was established to receive the remaining fund balances and assessments from closed bond funds. It provides a revolving funding source for assessment projects that are too small to issue bonds to finance. The 2006A General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund accounts for the accumulation of resources for payment of future debt service. The 2005A General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund accounts for the accumulation of resources for payment of the general obligation bonds issued to finance the 212 improvement project. The Capital Replacement Fund accounts for monies collected from developers for inspection and administrative services for projects. The Municipal State Aid Fund accounts for monies received from the state for improving designated state aid roads and can be used only for those purposes. Similar to the Park Acquisition and Development Fund, projects approved by the City Council maintain their own accounting records in accordance with governmental practices for Capital Project Funds. The local share of these projects is reserved within the Municipal State Aid Fund. In addition, this fund does maintain certain operational functions. The Special Assessment Projects Fund accounts for the construction or projects financed by special assessments. The government reports the following major proprietary funds: The Water Fund accounts for the water service charges which are used to finance the water system operating expenses. The Sewer Fund accounts for the sewer service charges which are used to finance the sanitary sewer system operating expenses. The Surface Water Management Fund accounts for the surface water charges which are used to finance the surface water system operating expenses. 555555 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Additionally, the government reports the following fund type: Agency funds account for the assets of various escrow deposits, Moon Valley Restoration and Highway 212 Right-of-Way loans held by the City in a trustee capacity or as an agent. Private-sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1, 1989, generally are followed in both the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Governments also have the option of following subsequent private- sector guidance for their business-type activities and enterprise funds, subject to this same limitation. The government has elected not to follow subsequent private-sector guidance. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government-wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are transactions that would be treated as revenues, expenditures or expenses if they involved external organizations, such as buying goods and services or payments in lieu of taxes, are similarly treated when they involve other funds of the City. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund’s principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the water, sewer, and surface water enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for an allowable use, it is the government’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. D. BUDGETS Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Annual appropriated budgets are adopted for the General and Special Revenue Funds. Budgeted amounts are reported as originally adopted, or as amended by the City Council. There were no budget amendments during 2005 to the Special Revenue Funds. Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year end. 565656 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the appropriation, is not employed by the City because it is at present not considered necessary to assure effective budgetary control or to facilitate effective cash management. E. LEGAL COMPLIANCE - BUDGETS The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. The City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following January 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 3. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution. 4. Management may authorize transfer of budgeted amounts between departments within any fund. All budget amendments between funds must be approved by the City Council. The legal level of budgetary control is at the fund level. Budgetary monitoring, by departments or divisions and by category, is required by the City policy. 5. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year for the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds. Formal budgetary integration is not employed for Debt Service Funds because effective budgetary control is alternatively achieved through general obligation bond indenture provisions. Budgetary control for Capital Projects Funds is accomplished through the use of project controls. The Special Revenue Funds expenditures did not exceed budget appropriation. F. CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash and investment balances from all funds are pooled and invested to the extent available in authorized investments. Investment income is allocated to individual funds on the basis of the fund's equity in the cash and investment pool. The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an advance from another fund shown as interfund receivable in the advancing fund, and an interfund payable in the fund with the deficit, until adequate resources are received. Investments are stated at fair value, based upon quoted market prices as of the balance sheet date. 575757 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 For purposes of the statement of cash flows, the Proprietary Funds consider all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. All of the cash and investments allocated to the Proprietary Fund types have original maturities of 90 days or less. Therefore the entire balance in such fund types is considered cash equivalents. G. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December (levy/assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local School District and other taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May 15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to the City on or before July 15 and December 15 of the same year. Delinquent collections for November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce payment of property taxes by property owners. The County possesses this authority. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which taxes were levied. Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported. GOVERNMENT FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes and State credits received by the City in July, December and January are recognized as revenue for the current year. Taxes collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and taxes and credits not received at year end are classified as delinquent and due from County taxes receivable. The portion of delinquent taxes not collected by the City in January are fully offset by deferred revenue because they are not available to finance current expenditures. The City's property tax revenue includes payments from the Metropolitan Revenue Distribution (Fiscal Disparities Formula) per State Statute 473F. This statute provides a means of spreading a portion of the taxable valuation of commercial/industrial real property to various taxing authorities within the defined metropolitan area. The valuation "shared" is a portion of commercial/industrial property valuation growth since 1971. 585858 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 H. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE RECOGNITION Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments are collectible by the City over a term of years usually consistent with the term of the related bond issue. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in the same manner as property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay future installments without interest or prepayment penalties. Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is subject to tax forfeit sale and the first proceeds of that sale (after costs, penalties and expenses of sale) are remitted to the City in payment of delinquent special assessments. Generally, the City will collect the full amount of its special assessments not adjusted by City Council or court action. Pursuant to State Statutes, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale after three years unless it is homesteaded, agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after five years. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been reported. GOVERNMENT FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special assessments are collected by the County and remitted by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent, deferred and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funds are completely offset by deferred revenues. I. INVENTORIES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS The original cost of materials and supplies has been recorded as expenditures at the time of purchase. These funds do not maintain material amounts of inventories. PROPRIETARY FUNDS Inventories of the Proprietary Funds are stated at cost, which approximates market, using the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method. 595959 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 J. CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, trails, sidewalks, and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or business-type activities columns in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the government as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 (amount not rounded) and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. In the case of the initial capitalization of general infrastructure assets, the City chose to include all such items regardless of their acquisition date amount. These assets are reported at historical or estimated historical cost, using the 1987 base highway construction price trend, when historical costs were unavailable. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business-type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. For the year ended December 31, 2005, no interest was capitalized in connection with construction in progress. Property, plant and equipment of the government is depreciated using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives: Buildings and structures 20 – 50 years Machinery and equipment 3 – 30 years Drainage systems 30 years Water and sewer lines 30 years Streets 25 – 50 years Trails 15 years Sidewalks 25 years Other improvements 7 – 40 years K. INTERFUND RECEIVABLES/PAYABLES During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds for goods provided or services rendered. Short-term interfund loans are classified as “interfund receivables/payables.” All short-term “interfund receivables/payables” at December 31, 2005 are planned to be eliminated in 2006. Long-term interfund loans are classified as “interfund loan receivable/payable.” Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as “internal balances.” 606060 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Property taxes and special assessment receivables have been reported net of estimated uncollectible accounts (See Note 1 G and H). Because utility bills are considered liens on property, no estimated uncollectible amounts are established. Uncollectible amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported. L. COMPENSATED ABSENCES The City compensates all employees upon termination for unused vacation and unused sick time up to a maximum based upon length of service. The City compensates nonexempt employees for unused comp time. All vacation pay and comp time is accrued when incurred in the government-wide and proprietary fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. In accordance with the provisions of Statement of Government Accounting Standards No. 16, Accounting for Compensated Absences, no liability is recorded for nonvesting accumulating rights to receive sick pay benefits. However, a liability is recognized for that portion of accumulating sick leave benefits that is vested as severance pay. The City’s liability for compensated absences at December 31, 2005 is scheduled below: Vacation $368,936 Severance 47,543 Comp time 295,829 $712,308 M. LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS In the government-wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business-type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net assets. Bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, are immaterial and are expensed in the year of bond issuance. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. 616161 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 N. FUND EQUITY In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report reservations of fund balance for amounts not appropriable for expenditure or legally segregated for a specific future use. Designated fund balances represent tentative plans for future use of financial resources. O. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures/expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures/expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Interfund loans are reported as an interfund loan receivable or payable which offsets the movement of cash between funds. Interfund interest paid out of governmental funds is either eliminated against governmental activities investment earnings, (if paid to governmental activities) or reclassified to a transfer out (if paid to business-type activities) on the statement of activities. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers. P. USE OF ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates that affect amounts reported in the financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates. Q. RECONCILIATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND BALANCE SHEET AND THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS The governmental fund balance sheet includes a reconciliation between fund balances – total governmental funds and net assets – governmental activities as reported in the government-wide statement of net assets. One element of that reconciliation explains that “long-term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds.” The details of this ($18,423,561) difference are as follows: Bonds payable ($17,415,000) Loan payable (105,419) Accrued interest payable (282,538) Compensated absences (620,604) Net adjustment to reduce fund balances - total governmental funds to arrive at net assets - governmental activities ($18,423,561) 626262 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 2. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES AND THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES The government fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances includes a reconciliation between net changes in fund balances – total governmental funds and changes in net assets of governmental activities as reported in the government-wide statement of activities. One element of that reconciliation explains that “governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense.” The details of this ($1,543,432) difference are as follows: Capital outlay/construction $3,118,886 Depreciation expense (4,653,318) Net adjustment to decrease net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities ($1,534,432) Another element of that reconciliation states that “the net effect of various miscellaneous transactions involving capital assets (i.e., sales, trade-ins and donations) is to increase net assets.” The details of this ($295,357) difference are as follows: In the statement of activities, only the gain on the sale of capital assets is reported. However, in the governmental funds, the proceeds from the sale increase financial resources. Thus, the change in net assets differs from the change in fund balance by the cost of the capital assets sold.($3,735) Donations of capital assets increase net assets in the statement of activities, but do not appear in the govermental funds because they are not financial resources.578,105 Transfer of Capital asset to Enterprise Funds(819,904) The statement of activities reports losses arising from the disposal of existing capital assets. Conversely, governmental funds do not report any gain or loss on the disposal of capital assets.(49,823) Net adjustment to decrease net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities.($295,357) 636363 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Another element of that reconciliation states that “revenues on the statement of activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds.” The details of this $2,511,613 difference are as follows: General property taxes deferred revenue: At December 31, 2004($78,016) At December 31, 2005111,630 Tax increment taxes deferred revenue: At December 31, 2004 (681) At December 31, 2005 - Special assessments deferred revenue: At December 31, 2004 (2,013,212) At December 31, 2005 4,491,892 Net adjustment to increase net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities.$2,511,613 Another element of that reconciliation states that “the issuance of long-term debt (e.g., bonds, leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the long-term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds.” Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. The details of this ($660,419) difference are as follows: Debt issued: General obligation debt($2,590,000) Loan issued(105,419) Principal repayments: General obligation debt1,085,000 General obligation improvement bonds with pledged special assessments 870,000 Public project revenue bonds80,000 Net adjustment to decrease net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities.($660,419) 646464 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Another element of that reconciliation states that “some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds.” The details of this $135,180 difference are as follows: Compensated absences ($39,987) Accrued interest 175,168 Net adjustment to increase net changes in fund balances - total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities.$135,181 Note 2 DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS A. DEPOSITS In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks authorized by the City Council, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. Minnesota Statutes require that all City deposits be protected by insurance, surety bond, or collateral. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of the deposits not covered by insurance or bonds. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the City Treasurer or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. Authorized collateral includes the following: a) United States government treasury bills, treasury notes, treasury bonds; b) Issues of United States government agencies and instrumentalities as quoted by a recognized industry quotation service available to the government entity; c) General obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service, or revenue obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national bond rating service; d) Unrated general obligation securities of a local government with taxing powers may be pledged as collateral against funds deposited by that same local government entity; e) Irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by Federal Home Loan Banks to a municipality accompanied by written evidence that the bank’s public debt is rated “AA” or better by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Standard & Poor’s Corporation; and f) Time deposits that are fully insured by any federal agency. 656565 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 At December 31, 2005 the carrying amount of the City’s deposits with financial institutions was $1,918,241. Of these deposits, $0 were uncollateralized. B. INVESTMENTS Minnesota Statutes authorize the City to invest in the following: a) Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies, its instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of congress, excluding mortgage-backed securities defined as high risk. b) Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are in securities described in (a) above, general obligation tax-exempt securities, or repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements. c) Obligations of the State of Minnesota or any of its municipalities as follows: 1) any security which is a general obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating service; 2) any security which is a revenue obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is rated “AA” or better by a national bond rating service; and 3) a general obligation of the Minnesota housing finance agency which is a moral obligation of the State of Minnesota and is rated “A” or better by a national bond rating agency. d) Bankers acceptance of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. e) Commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of the highest quality, and maturing in 270 days or less. f) Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000; a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; certain Minnesota securities broker-dealers; or, a bank qualified as a depositor. g) General obligation temporary bonds of the same governmental entity issued under section 429.091, subdivision 7; 469.178, subdivision 5; or 475.61, subdivision 6. 666666 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 As of December 31, 2005 the City had the following investments and maturities: Fair Less Over Investment Type RatingValueThan 1 1-5 6-1010 Years Federal National Mortgage Assn. Notes (1)AAA$5,456,600$2,495,000$2,961,600$ - $ - Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Notes (1)AAA2,465,6751,970,300495,375 - - Federal Home Loan Bank Notes (1)AAA24,176,5504,954,00019,222,550 - - Federal Farm Credit Bank Notes (1)AAA2,627,595 - 2,627,595 - - Commercial paper A1/PA7,054,3357,054,335 - - - Municipal bond AAA 175,824 - 175,824 - - Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Discount Notes (1)N/A 1,022,7001,022,700 - - - Money market N/A 1,010,8231,010,823 - - - Total $43,990,102$18,507,158$25,482,944 $0 $0 Total investments $43,990,102 Deposits 1,918,241 Petty cash 610 (1)These investments have call dates that occur in less than one year. Total cash and investments $45,908,953 Investment Maturities (in Years) C. INVESTMENT RISKS The City’s investment policy is to follow Minnesota State Statutes as described above which reduces the City’s exposure to credit, custodial credit, and interest rate risks. Specific risk information for the City is as follows: Interest rate risk – The City’s investment policy requires the City to diversify its investment portfolio to eliminate the risk of loss resulting from over concentration of assets in a specific maturity. The policy also states the City’s investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet all operating requirements which might be reasonably anticipated, i.e., not investing in maturities longer than five years. Credit risk – The City does not have a formal investment policy that further limits the ratings of their investments from those that are authorized by Minnesota Statutes. Concentration of credit risk – The City places no limit on the amount the City may invest in any one issuer. More than 5% of the City’s investments are in various holdings as follows: Federal Home Loan Bank Notes 54.96% Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Notes 5.61% Federal National Mortgage Assn. Notes 12.43% Federal Farm Credit Bank Notes 5.98% Rhineland Funding Commercial Paper 5.66% 676767 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Note 3 RECEIVABLES Significant receivable balances not expected to be collected within one year of December 31, 2005 are as follows: CertifiedDelinquent Special Due from AccountsPropertyAssessmentOther ReceivableTaxesReceivableGovernmentsTotal Major Funds: General$ - $111,630$ - $ - $111,630 Permanent Revolving Debt - - 291,290 - 291,290 Municipal State Aid Fund - - - 1,327,8591,327,859 Water4,354 - 151,521 - 155,875 Sewer - - 84,429 - 84,429 Nonmajor Funds - - 3,725,439 - 3,725,439 $4,354$111,630$4,252,679$1,327,859$5,696,522 Governmental funds report deferred revenue in connection with receivables for revenues that are not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Governmental funds also defer revenue recognition in connection with resources that have been received, but not yet earned. At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of deferred revenue and unearned revenue reported in the governmental funds were as follows: PermanentMunicipal General RevolvingState Aid Nonmajor FundDebtFundFundsTotal Unavailable: Delinquent property taxes receivable$111,630$ - $ - $ - $111,630 Special assessments not yet due - 344,894 - 4,146,9984,491,892 Total unavailable revenue111,630344,89404,146,9984,603,522 Unearned: Grant revenue received but not yet earned - - 1,327,859 - 1,327,859 Antenna rental fees received but not yet earned50,711 - - - 50,711 Total unearned revenue50,71101,327,85901,378,570 Total deferred (unavailable)/unearned revenue for governmental funds$162,341$344,894$1,327,859$4,146,998$5,982,092 Major Funds 686868 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Note 4 CAPITAL ASSETS Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2005, as previously reported was as follows: Balance Balance December 31, December 31, Primary Government 2004AdjustmentsIncreaseDecreaseTransfers2005 Governmental activities: Capital assets - not depreciated: Land $19,453,629($2,774,500)$5,048$ - -$ $16,684,177 Construction in progress 1,570,392(819,904)2,477,397 - (2,690,280)537,605 Total capital assets not being depreciated 21,024,021(3,594,404)2,482,445 0(2,690,280)17,221,782 Capital assets - being depreciated: Buildings and structures 15,214,659 - - (10,690) - 15,203,969 Machinery and equipment 5,388,909 - 243,248(44,450) - 5,587,707 Other Improvements 3,114,038 - 398,241(106,391) - 3,405,888 Infrastructure 92,634,420 - 573,057 - 2,690,28095,897,757 Total capital assets being depreciated 116,352,026 01,214,546(161,531)2,690,280120,095,321 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and structures 2,627,525 - 306,694(8,018) - 2,926,201 Machinery and equipment 2,960,216 - 422,421(40,439) - 3,342,198 Other Improvements 861,336 - 234,042(59,516)1,035,862 Infrastructure 38,438,578 - 3,690,161 - 42,128,739 Total accumulated depreciation 44,887,655 04,653,318(107,973)049,433,000 Governmental activities capital assets - net 92,488,392(3,594,404)(956,327)(53,558)087,884,103 Balance Balance December 31, December 31, Primary Government 2004AdjustmentsIncreaseDecreaseTransfers2005 Business-type activities: Capital assets - not depreciated: Land $35,988$ - $ - $ - $ - $35,988 Construction in progress 1,194,560819,9044,861,646 - (2,665,433)4,210,677 Total capital assets not being depreciated 1,230,548819,9044,861,646 0(2,665,433)4,246,665 Capital assets - being depreciated: Machinery and equipment 2,257,823 - 24,446 - - 2,282,269 Other Improvements 77,839,113 - 381,771 - 2,665,43380,886,317 Total capital assets being depreciated 80,096,936 0406,217 02,665,43383,168,586 Less accumulated depreciation for: Machinery and equipment 696,680 - 70,677 - - 767,357 Other Improvements 31,142,249 - 2,480,678 - - 33,622,927 Total accumulated depreciation 31,838,929 02,551,355 0 034,390,284 Business-type activities capital assets - net 49,488,555819,9042,716,508 0 053,024,967 Total capital assets - net $141,976,947($2,774,500)$1,760,181($53,558)$0$140,909,070 696969 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Depreciation expense was charged to functions/programs of the government as follows: Governmental activities: General government $292,833 Public safety 106,946 Public works 3,068,733 Parks and recreation 1,184,806 Total depreciation expense - governmental activities $4,653,318 Business-type activities: Water $1,069,402 Sewer 857,382 Storm sewer 624,572 Total depreciation expense - business-type activities $2,551,356 707070 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Note 5 CITY INDEBTEDNESS The City issues general obligation bonds, to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities. The reporting entity’s long-term debt is segregated between the amounts to be repaid from governmental activities and amounts to be repaid from business-type activities. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES As of December 31, 2005, the governmental activities long-term debt of the City consisted of the following: Final Authorized Issue Maturity Interest AndOutstanding DateDateRateIssued12/31/05 General Long-Term Debt: General Obligation Bonds: G.O. Park Bonds, Series 1998A 6/01/982/01/104.40% - 4.63%$4,970,000$3,560,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2001C 7/15/012/01/063.20% - 3.80%515,000140,000 G.O. Library Bonds, Series 2002A 3/01/022/01/22 1.55% - 4.85%6,095,0005,540,000 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2003A 8/01/038/01/08 1.35% - 2.45%630,000385,000 G.O. Park Refunding, Series 2005C 11/16/052/10/10 3.50%2,590,0002,590,000 Total general obligation bonds 14,800,00012,215,000 Revenue Bonds: 2000 Public Project Revenue Bonds 12/01/002/01/124.75%-5.35%930,000705,000 Tax Increment Bonds: G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004C8/10/042/01/213.00% - 6.00%1,170,0001,170,000 General Improvement Bonds: G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 1999A 12/01/992/01/103.80% - 4.90%2,585,000855,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2001B 7/15/012/01/104.00% - 4.30%640,000400,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2004A 8/10/042/01/152.50% - 4.00%2,070,0002,070,000 Total improvement bonds 5,295,0003,325,000 Other debt: Loan payable for highway construction 4/19/058/01/173.81%105,419105,419 Compensated absences payable - 620,604 Total City indebtedness - governmental activities $22,300,419$18,141,023 717171 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES As of December 31, 2005, the business-type activities long-term debt of the City consisted of the following: Final Authorized Issue Maturity Interest AndOutstanding DateDateRateIssued12/31/2005 G.O. Revenue Bonds: Water Revenue Bonds of 1998, Series C 6-01-982-01-093.90% - 4.55%$820,000$395,000 Water Revenue Bonds of 1999, Series A 12-01-992-01-103.80% - 5.00%1,670,000940,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds of 2001, Series A7-15-012-01-123.50% - 4.65%1,645,000855,000 Water Revenue Bonds of 2004, Series B 8-10-042-01-254.00% - 4.50%7,930,0007,890,000 Water Revenue Bonds of 2005, Series B 11-16-072-01-213.75% - 3.90%5,465,0005,465,000 Total G.O. Revenue Bonds 17,530,00015,545,000 Compensated absences payable N/AN/AN/A N/A 91,704 Total City indebtedness - Business-type activities $17,530,000$15,636,704 GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the governmental activities long-term debt are as follows: G.O. Tax Increment Bonds Year EndingGovernmental ActivitiesGovernmental ActivitiesGovernmental ActivitiesGovernmental ActivitiesGovernmental Activities December 31PrincipalInterestPrincipalInterestPrincipalInterestPrincipalInterestPrincipalInterest 2006$755,000$103,813$50,000$58,450$85,000$34,130$1,165,000$456,269$ - $ - 2007755,00076,75450,00056,90090,00029,7981,610,000430,476 - - 2008670,00051,05555,00055,09695,00025,1251,795,000365,2638,85811,248 2009460,00031,55855,00052,978100,00020,1531,780,000292,6219,1963,679 2010425,00016,85160,00050,485105,00014,8991,525,000227,0409,5463,329 201170,0008,30060,00047,725110,0009,308275,000192,2519,9102,965 201270,0005,85065,00044,720120,0003,210285,000180,87310,2872,587 201370,0003,31370,00041,345 - - 300,000168,62010,6792,195 201425,0001,50070,00037,775 - - 315,000155,31511,0861,789 201525,00050075,00034,005 - - 330,000140,96011,5081,366 2016 - - 80,00029,895 - - 345,000125,68611,947928 2017 - - 85,00025,441 - - 365,000109,44312,402473 2018 - - 90,00020,580 - - 380,00092,213 - - 2019 - - 95,00015,308 - - 405,00073,860 - - 2020 - - 100,0009,600 - - 425,00054,249 - - 2021 - - 110,0003,300 - - 445,00033,475 - - 2022 - - - - - - 470,00011,398 - - Total$3,325,000$299,493$1,170,000$583,603$705,000$136,621$12,215,000$3,110,011$105,420$30,558 Loan PayableG.O. Improvement BondsPublic Project Revenue BondsAll Other G.O. Bonds It is not practicable to determine the specific year for payment of long-term accrued compensated absences. The revenue bond issue was sold by the City’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) to fund the construction of a municipal facility. The City makes lease payments to the EDA to fund debt service on these issues. The EDA is a blended component unit of the City of Chanhassen and the bond is reported in the General Long-Term Debt Account Group. 727272 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 The City has issued General Improvement Bonds to provide funds for various construction projects. The bonds have interest rates ranging from 3.60% to 5.45% and are payable over the next six years. In case of a default by property owners, the City can place a lien on the property in order to recover the default. The balance payable at December 31, 2005 is $3,325,000. BUSINESS-TYPE ACTIVITIES Annual debt service requirements to maturity for the business-type long-term debt are as follows: G.O. Revenue Bonds Year EndingBusiness-Type Activities December 31PrincipalInterest 2006$725,000$561,629 2007 905,000588,125 2008 995,000548,704 20091,025,000506,490 2010 940,000465,356 2011 700,000431,954 2012 730,000403,783 2013 690,000376,011 2014 715,000348,799 2015 750,000320,424 2016 775,000290,886 2017 805,000260,080 2018 845,000227,391 2019 880,000192,676 2020 915,000156,323 2021 960,000117,917 2022 505,00086,935 2023 535,00063,788 2024 560,00039,150 2025 590,00013,275 Total$15,545,000$5,999,695 It is not practicable to determine the specific year for payment of long-term accrued compensated absences. 737373 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 CHANGE IN LONG-TERM LIABILITIES Long-term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2005, was as follows: Beginning Ending Due Within BalanceAdditionsDeletionsBalanceOne Year Governmental activities: Bonds payable: General obligation $10,710,000$2,590,000$1,085,000$12,215,000$4,045,000 G.O. improvement bonds 4,195,000 - 870,0003,325,000755,000 G.O. Tax increment bonds 1,170,000 - - 1,170,00050,000 Public Project revenue bonds 785,000 - 80,000705,00085,000 Total bonds payable 16,860,0002,590,0002,035,00017,415,0004,935,000 Loan payable - 105,419 - 105,419 - Compensated absences 580,617494,910454,923620,60475,838 Total governmental activity long-term liabilities $17,440,617$3,190,329$2,489,923$18,141,023$5,010,838 Business-type activities: G.O. Revenue bonds $10,600,000$5,465,000$520,000$15,545,000$725,000 Compensated absences 78,11569,95856,36991,70411,206 Total business-type activity long-term liabilities $10,678,115$5,534,958$576,369$15,636,704$736,206 For the governmental activities, loans payable and compensated absences are generally liquidated by the general and special revenue funds. All long-term bonded indebtedness outstanding at December 31, 2005 is backed by the full faith and credit of the City, including special assessment, tax increment and water revenue bond issues. Delinquent assessments receivable at December 31, 2005 totaled $0. General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds are serviced by the Sewer and Water Enterprise Funds and are carried as debt of that fund. Other bonds are supported by various Debt Service Funds. All bonds are backed by the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the City. CURRENT REFUNDING On November 16, 2005, the City issued the $2,590,000 General Obligation Park Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C with an average interest rate of 3.5% to refund the 2006 through 2010 maturities aggregating $2,590,000 principal amount of the City’s $4,970,000 General Obligation Park Bonds, Series 1998A with an average interest rate of 4.5%. The net proceeds of $2,579,305 (after payment of $22,971 of issuance costs) plus an additional $16,612 of interest earnings and $285,000 from the prior issue debt service fund will be used to retire all outstanding principal of the refunded bonds on February 1, 2006 (the call date). 7474 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 The City refunded the 1998A Bonds to reduce its total debt service payments over the next four years by $40,621 and to obtain an economic gain (difference between the present value of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $49,711. Note 6 DEFERRED AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES - BONDED DEBT General Obligation bond issues sold by the City are financed by ad valorem tax levies. Special assessment bond issues sold by the City are partially financed by ad valorem tax levies in addition to special assessments levied against the benefiting properties. When a bond issue to be financed partially or completely by ad valorem tax levies is sold, specific annual amounts of such tax levies are stated in the bond resolution and the County Auditor is notified and instructed to levy these taxes over the appropriate years. The future tax levies are subject to cancellation when and if the City has provided alternative sources of financing. The City Council is required to levy any additional taxes found necessary for full payment of principal and interest. These future scheduled tax levies are not shown as assets in the accompanying financial statements at December 31, 2005. Future scheduled tax levies for all bonds outstanding at December 31, 2005 totaled $16,867,911. Note 7 PENSION PLANS A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (PERA) PLAN DESCRIPTION All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by defined benefit plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) which are cost-sharing, multiple-employer retirement plans. These plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Chapters 353 and 356. PERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. All police officers, firefighters and peace officers who qualify for membership by statute are covered by the PEPFF. PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by State Statute, and vest after three years of credited service. The defined retirement benefits are based on a member’s highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. The benefit provisions stated in the previous paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. 757575 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 PERA issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for PERF and PEPFF. That report may be obtained on the internet at www.mnpera.org, by writing to PERA, 60 Empire Drive #200, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55103-2088 or by calling (651)296-7460 or 1-800-652-9026. B. FUNDING POLICY Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. These statutes are established and amended by the state legislature. The City makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by state statutes. PERF Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members were required to contribute 9.10% and 5.10%, respectively, of their annual covered salary in 2005. Contribution rates in the Coordinated Plan will increase in 2006 to 5.5%. PEPFF members were required to contribute 6.20% of their annual covered salary in 2005. That rate will increase to 7.0% in 2006. The City is required to contribute the following percentages of annual covered payroll: 11.78% for Basic Plan PERF members, 5.53% for Coordinated Plan PERF members, and 9.30% for PEPFF members. Employer contribution rates for the Coordinated Plan and PEPFF will increase to 6.0% and 10.5% respectively, effective January 1, 2006. The City’s contributions for the last three years which were equal to the contractually required contributions for each year as set by State Statute are as follows: Year Ended December 31PERFPEPFF 2003 $202,245$10,733 2004 207,0499,140 2005 217,37110,483 C. CHANHASSEN FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION PLAN DESCRIPTION The volunteer firefighters of the City of Chanhassen are members of the Chanhassen Fire Department Relief Association. The Chanhassen Fire Department Relief Association is the administrator of a single employer defined benefit Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) established to provide benefits for members of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Plan provisions are established and may be amended by the Relief Association’s Board of Trustees within the guidelines of the State of Minnesota statutes. The Relief Association provides retirement and disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. All benefit provisions and the obligation to make contributions are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. The Relief Association issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. 767676 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 FUNDING POLICY Minnesota Statutes Chapter 69.772 specifies minimum support rates required on an annual basis. The minimum support rates from the municipality and from State aid are determined as the amount required to meet the normal cost plus amortizing any existing prior service costs over a ten-year period. The significant actuarial assumptions used to compute the municipal support are the same as those used to compute the accrued pension liability. The Association is comprised of volunteers; therefore, members have no contribution requirements. The City’s annual pension cost for the current year and related information for the plan is as follows: Annual pension cost $148,645 Contributions made: City $0 State aid $148,645 Actuarial valuation date 12/31/2005 Actuarial cost method Entry age normal Amortization method Level dollar/Closed Remaining amortization period: Normal cost 20 years Prior service cost 10 years Asset valuation method Market Actuarial assumptions: Investment rate of return 5% Projected salary increases N/A Includes inflation at N/A Cost of living adjustments None THREE YEAR TREND INFORMATION Three-Year Trend Information AnnualPercentageNet YearPensionof APCPension EndingCost (APC)ContributedObligation 12/31/2003$130,972 100%$ - 12/31/2004154,033 100% - 12/31/2005148,645 100% - 777777 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Assets in Excess of/Pension ActuarialActuarialActuarial(Unfunded)Benefit ValuationValue ofAccruedAccruedFundedPer Year DateAssetsLiabilityLiabilityRatioof Service 12/31/2003$1,499,833$2,175,000($675,167)69.0%$4,000 12/31/20041,752,3432,116,368(364,025)82.8%4,000 12/31/20051,964,9062,222,000(257,094)88.4%4,000 The Association is comprised of volunteers; therefore, there are no payroll expenditures (i.e., there are no covered payroll amounts or percentage calculations). Note 8 INTERFUND RECEIVABLES/PAYABLES, LOANS AND TRANSFERS Interfund receivable and payable balances at December 31, 2005 are as follows: Fund ReceivablePayable Permenant Revolving Debt $60,982$ - Capital Replacement Fund 350,484 - Special Assessment Projects - 310,865 2005A G.O. Improvement Bonds - 7,164 Other governmental funds 108,252201,689 Total $519,718$519,718 Interfund receivables and payables are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements to cover deficit cash balances at the end of the fiscal year. The funds will be repaid as grant revenue, developer contributions and accounts receivables are received. 787878 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Interfund transfers: TransfersTransfers InOut Special Assessment Projects$349,412$ - Municipal State Aid Fund - 223,000 Non-major Government funds911,868688,868 Water Fund - 130,333 Sewer Fund - 154,258 Surface Water Mgmt Fund - 64,821 Total$1,261,280$1,261,280 Interfund transfers allow the City to allocate financial resources to the funds that receive benefit from services provided by another fund. All of the City’s interfund transfers fall under that category. All of the 2005 transfers are considered routine and consistent with previous practices. Additionally, interfund interest expense paid by the governmental funds to the enterprise funds has been reclassified as transfers on the government-wide statement of activities as follows: Activities Transfers in (business-type activities): Water Fund$7,250 Sewer Fund2,109 Surface Water Management Fund1,973 Total$11,332 The interfund interest expense is eliminated to avoid the “grossing up” expenses and revenues because of internal activity. 797979 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Additionally, capital assets contributed to the Enterprise Funds have also been reclassified as transfers on the government-wide statement of activities as follows: Transfers Out Governmental Activities Transfers in (business-type activities): Water Fund$265,879 Sewer Fund400,506 Surface Water Management Fund153,519 Total$819,904 Note 9 CONDUIT DEBT From time to time, the City has issued Industrial Revenue Bonds to provide financial assistance to private- sector entities for the acquisition and construction of industrial and commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property financed and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private-sector entity served by the bond issuance. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for the repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. As of December 31, 2005, the series of Industrial Revenue Bonds were outstanding: BondsOriginal12/31/2005Maturity Project NameIssuedPrincipalPrincipalDate Building Management Group12/95$1,275,000$905,0002016 Ridgeview Medical Center, Series 2002A10/025,024,0005,024,0002023 Ridgeview Medical Center, Series 2002B10/02628,000265,8372007 Ridgeview Medical Center, Series 2002C10/021,135,600811,4342009 Chapel Hill Academy, Series 2005A12/051,337,7001,337,7002009 As of December 31, 2005, there were an additional 4 series of Industrial Revenue Bonds outstanding. The aggregate principal amount for the additional four series issued prior to July 1, 1995 could not be determined; however, their original issue amounts totaled $10,180,000. 808080 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Note 10 DEFICIT FUND BALANCES The City has deficit fund balances in the following individual funds at December 31, 2005: Debt Service Funds: 2004C Taxable G.O. T.I. Bonds$53,818 2005A G.O. Improvement Bonds6,812 Capital Project Funds: TID #5 North Bay108,252 212/101 Gap36,824 Special Assessment Projects1,063,378 Total$1,269,084 These deficits will be eliminated through special assessments, future bond proceeds and transfers from other funds. Note 11 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES A. RISK MANAGEMENT The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to, and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. The City continues to carry commercial insurance for risks of loss, including workers compensation, property and general liability and employee health and accident insurance. There were no significant reductions in insurance from the previous year or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for any of the past three fiscal years. B. LITIGATION The City attorney has indicated that any existing and pending lawsuits, claims and other actions in which the City is a defendant are either covered by insurance; of an immaterial amount; or, in the judgment of the City attorney, remotely recoverable by plaintiffs. C. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS The City receives financial assistance from federal and state governmental agencies in the form of grants. The disbursement of funds received under these programs generally requires compliance with the terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and is subject to audit by the grantor agencies. Any disallowed claims resulting from such audits could become a liability of the applicable fund. However, in the opinion of management, any such disallowed claims will not have a material effect on any of the financial statements of the individual fund types included herein or on the overall financial position of the City at December 31, 2005. 818181 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 D. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS The City’s tax increment districts are subject to review by the State of Minnesota Office of the State Auditor (OSA). Any disallowed claims or misuse of tax increments could become a liability of the applicable fund. Management has indicated that they are not aware of any instances of noncompliance which would have a material effect on the financial statements. Note 12 DESIGNATIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF FUND EQUITY At December 31, 2005 the City had designated and reserved portions of its various fund equities through legal restriction and City Council authorization. Major fund equity appropriations at December 31, 2005 are shown on the various balance sheets as segregations of the fund equity. A summary of such designations is as follows: December 31, 2005 General Fund Designated for cash flow$3,199,800 Reserved for prepaid items20,239 Total General Fund3,220,039 Capital Replacement Fund Designated for capital improvements1,004,178 Municipal State Aid Fund Designated for capital improvements126,088 Other governmental funds: Reserved for prepaid items523 Reserved for future programs35,909 Reserved for debt service6,560,884 Designated for cable equipment489,370 Designated for capital improvements2,984,554 Total other governmental funds10,071,240 Total reservation and designations of fund balance$14,421,545 828282 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Note 13 COMMITTED CONTRACTS At December 31, 2005, the City had commitments of $9,954,551 for uncompleted construction contracts. Note 14 PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT In 2004 capital assets in the governmental activities were overstated by $2,774,500. A correction of an error was made as shown below. Net Assets Governmental Activities Balance - January 1, 2004, as previously reported$94,608,556 Prior period adjustment: Correction for land recorded as capital asset and land held for resale(2,774,500) Balance - January 1, 2004, as restated$91,834,056 In 2004, tax receipts for the 2003A G.O. Equipment Certificates were recorded in the wrong fund. A correction of an error was made as shown below: 2003A G.O.Permanent EquipmentRevolving CertificateDebt Balance - January 1, 2005, as previously reported($127,146)$3,035,546 Prior period adjustment - revenue correction137,532(137,532) Balance - January 1, 2004, as restated$10,386$2,898,014 Fund Balance Governmental Funds Note 15 OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE BENEFITS The City provides the ability for employees to maintain insurance coverage with the City after retirement. The retired employee is responsible for 100% of the cost. A separate medical premium account is maintained for each employee, which is to be used for post employment health care costs. The employee has the option of contributing to the plan. Also, employees are required to contribute 50% of sick leave benefits in excess of 600 hours. 838383 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 Note 16 RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS The Governmental Accounting Standards Boards (GASB) recently approved the following statements which were not implemented for these financial statements: Statement No. 44 Economic Condition Reporting: The Statistical Section – an amendment to NCGA Statement 1. The City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) includes a statistical section. This section presents multi-year trend information on financial and non-financial data. GASB 44 modifies the information that is required to be presented in a statistical section. The provisions of this Statement are effective for statistical sections prepared for periods beginning after June 15, 2005. Statement No. 45 Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post Employment Benefits Other Than Pension Plans. The components of employee compensation not only include wages, healthcare benefits and pension benefits, but also include other postemployment benefits (OPEB). OPEBs include postemployment healthcare benefits and other postemployment benefits such as life insurance and long- term disability. Under current practice, the common method of accounting for the cost of OPEBs is on a pay-as-you-go basis. With the implementation of GASB No. 45, OPEB costs are recognized on financial statements when they are earned, not when they are paid. Implementation is required in three phases based on a government’s total annual revenues in the first fiscal year ending after June 15, 1999. This Statement is effective for period beginning after December 15, 2006, for phase 1 governments (those with total annual revenues of $100 million or more); after December 15, 2007, for phase 2 governments (those with total annual revenues of $10 million or more but less than $100 million); and after December 15, 2008, for phase 3 governments (those with total annual revenues of less than $10 million). Early implementation is encouraged. Statement No. 46 Net Assets Restricted by Enabling Legislation – an amendment of GASB Statement 34. Implementation requires that limitations on the use of net assets imposed by enabling legislation be reported as restricted net assets. In the process of applying this provision, some governments have had difficulty interpreting the requirement that those restrictions be “legally enforceable.” The confusion over this phrase has resulted in a diversity of practice that has diminished comparability. This Statement clarifies that a legally enforceable enabling legislation restriction is one that a party external to a government – such as citizens, public interest groups, or the judiciary – can compel a government to honor. The provisions of this Statement are effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2005. Statement No. 47 Accounting for Termination Benefits. The provisions of this Statement are effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2005. The effect these standards may have on future financial statements is not determinable at this time. 848484 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION temporary - 77temporary - 778383858585858585858585 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 1 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Revenues: General property taxes: Current$5,861,820$5,861,820$5,943,026$81,206$6,348,667 Delinquent50,00050,00041,469(8,531)112,689 Excess tax increment - - 245,098245,098 - Total general property taxes5,911,8205,911,8206,229,593317,7736,461,356 Licenses and permits: Licenses - general government3,4503,4502,100(1,350)3,300 Licenses - public safety102,400102,400130,83228,43299,336 Permits - public safety1,192,5001,192,500979,337(213,163)1,155,281 Permits - public works10,00010,00040,43330,43330,339 Permits - community development - - 7,4357,4355,800 Total licenses and permits1,308,3501,308,3501,160,137(148,213)1,294,056 Intergovernmental: State: PERA - public safety20,00020,00020,13813819,467 State aid - fire - public safety143,500143,500148,6455,145154,033 Other - general government - - - - 1,382 Municipal state aid - public works - - - - 138,080 County: Police aid - public safety40,00040,00050,72810,72847,264 Total intergovernmental203,500203,500219,51116,011360,226 Charges for services: Administrative charges - public works95,60095,600181,92986,329108,743 Investment management fee - general government65,00065,00065,000 - 65,000 Recreation center - park and recreation170,000170,000135,881(34,119)176,277 Self supporting programs - park and recreation157,000157,000171,08414,084176,377 Other: General government59,00059,0003,572(55,428)75,674 Public safety5,0005,0005,8288284,985 Public works2,0002,00027,03725,03722,121 Park and recreation66,45066,45062,161(4,289)46,097 Community development30,70030,70045,04014,34046,196 Total charges for services650,750650,750697,53246,782721,470 Fines and forfeits: Public safety65,50065,500101,96236,46261,801 Public works - - 3,0003,000 - Total fines and forfeits65,50065,500104,96239,46261,801 Miscellaneous: Investment income - general government100,000100,000125,29225,29278,824 Contributions and donations General government - - 15,77515,775 - Public safety - - 2,5832,583 - Park and recreation - - 19,40019,400 - 2005 Budgeted Amounts 86 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 2 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Revenues: (continued) Other: General government$40,500$40,500$133,770$93,270$11,156 Public safety12,50012,50068,19455,69443,835 Public works - - 7,3647,36423,196 Park and recreation15,00015,00017,1392,13911,383 Community development - - 595595250 Total miscellaneous168,000168,000390,112222,112168,644 Total revenues8,307,9208,307,9208,801,847493,9279,067,553 Expenditures: General government: Legislative: Current: Personal services34,20034,20031,4882,71232,546 Materials and supplies200200 - 200235 Contractual services100,200100,20082,79717,40379,833 Total legislative 134,600134,600114,28520,315112,614 Administrative office: Current: Personal services351,700351,700346,2875,413320,366 Materials and supplies50050011489572 Contractual services51,70051,70051,6703066,594 Total administrative office403,900403,900397,9685,932387,532 Finance: Current: Personal services211,400211,400214,063(2,663)215,094 Materials and supplies900900421479 - Contractual services85,35085,35096,045(10,695)102,700 Total finance297,650297,650310,529(12,879)317,794 Election: Current: Personal services13,50013,500 - 13,50022,200 Contractual services5,0005,0001,5083,4924,059 Total election18,50018,5001,50816,99226,259 Legal: Current: Contractual services145,000145,000127,17917,821132,922 Property assessment: Current: Contractual services83,60083,60085,937(2,337)75,901 M.I.S.: Current: Personal services144,800144,800145,229(429)138,696 Materials and supplies16,60016,60012,3254,27512,858 Contractual services97,70097,70079,27318,42763,915 Total M.I.S.259,100259,100236,82722,273215,469 2005 Budgeted Amounts 87 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 3 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Expenditures: General government: (continued) City hall: Current: Personal services$63,100$63,100$65,371($2,271)$65,000 Materials and supplies39,60039,60042,855(3,255)31,672 Contractual services293,150293,150338,834(45,684)296,575 Total City hall395,850395,850447,060(51,210)393,247 Library: Current: Materials and supplies2,0002,0001,8081926,353 Contractual services69,50069,50099,253(29,753)83,653 Total library71,50071,500101,061(29,561)90,006 Total general government1,809,7001,809,7001,822,354(12,654)1,751,744 Public safety: Police: Current: Personal services68,30068,30067,74855266,218 Materials and supplies - - 5,201(5,201)4,302 Contractual services1,189,0001,189,0001,170,37118,6291,008,270 Total police1,257,3001,257,3001,243,32013,9801,078,790 Fire department: Current: Personal services512,500512,500442,33270,168470,407 Materials and supplies47,20047,20047,806(606)49,745 Contractual services97,05097,050107,909(10,859)94,698 Total current656,750656,750598,04758,703614,850 Capital outlay - - 265(265) - Total fire department656,750656,750598,31258,438614,850 Code enforcement: Current: Personal services691,200691,200605,50385,697656,163 Materials and supplies8,7008,7004,9343,7663,678 Contractual services24,40024,40014,4679,93319,689 Total code enforcement724,300724,300624,90499,396679,530 Animal control Current: Personal services42,85042,85041,5591,29141,442 Materials and supplies3,8503,8501,3392,5112,498 Contractual services11,05011,05015,965(4,915)12,354 Total animal control57,75057,75058,863(1,113)56,294 Total public safety2,696,1002,696,1002,525,399170,7012,429,464 2005 Budgeted Amounts 88 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 4 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Expenditures: Public works: Engineering Current: Personal services$470,000$470,000$467,933$2,067$442,048 Materials and supplies800800333467654 Contractual services28,15028,15021,8436,30716,241 Total current498,950498,950490,1098,841458,943 Capital outlay250250 - 250 - Total engineering499,200499,200490,1099,091458,943 Street maintenance: Current: Personal services581,500581,500553,36428,136521,807 Materials and supplies106,450106,450134,322(27,872)172,190 Contractual services33,35033,35018,04015,31027,741 Total current721,300721,300705,72615,574721,738 Capital outlay1,2501,250 - 1,250 - Total street maintenance 722,550722,550705,72616,824721,738 Street lighting: Current: Materials and supplies1,5001,5003,132(1,632)2,861 Contractual services231,800231,800261,551(29,751)235,697 Total street lighting233,300233,300264,683(31,383)238,558 City garage: Current: Personal services241,000241,000231,8359,165234,828 Materials and supplies86,20086,20093,662(7,462)85,009 Contractual services41,10041,10037,5493,55134,579 Total current368,300368,300363,0465,254354,416 Capital outlay6,0006,000 - 6,000 - Total City garage374,300374,300363,04611,254354,416 Total public works1,829,3501,829,3501,823,5645,7861,773,655 Parks and recreation: Parks and recreation commission: Current: Materials and supplies125125 - 125 - Contractual services1,1001,1001,201(101)1,054 Total parks and recreation commission1,2251,2251,201241,054 Parks and recreation administration: Current: Personal services104,100104,100104,0841699,114 Materials and supplies1,0001,000581419379 Contractual services6,2006,2006,318(118)3,985 Total parks and recreation administration111,300111,300110,983317103,478 2005 Budgeted Amounts 89 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 5 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Expenditures: (continued) Parks and recreation: (continued) Recreation center: Current: Personal services$190,900$190,900$206,077($15,177)$230,573 Materials and supplies11,50011,5004,3347,16613,770 Contractual services32,50032,50039,599(7,099)30,357 Total recreation center234,900234,900250,010(15,110)274,700 Senior citizen center: Current: Personal services24,30024,30023,95734328,235 Materials and supplies3,5003,5002,7777232,893 Contractual services10,55010,55021,031(10,481)15,790 Total senior citizen center38,35038,35047,765(9,415)46,918 Recreation program: Current: Personal services155,400155,400140,10915,291134,774 Materials and supplies14,40014,40016,548(2,148)15,753 Contractual services75,00075,00065,9049,09660,401 Total recreation program244,800244,800222,56122,239210,928 Self-supporting programs: Current: Personal services32,40032,40029,9532,44729,862 Materials and supplies8,2508,2509,921(1,671)11,979 Contractual services85,20085,200104,773(19,573)101,488 Total self-supporting programs125,850125,850144,647(18,797)143,329 Lake Ann Park Operations: Current: Personal services12,00012,0009,3982,6028,228 Materials and supplies9,3509,3507,0562,2947,379 Contractual services43,85043,85039,3694,48140,224 Total Lake Ann Park operations65,20065,20055,8239,37755,831 Park maintenance: Current: Personal services600,300600,300603,333(3,033)585,855 Materials and supplies85,30085,30079,7245,57672,710 Contractual services80,15080,15072,1947,956111,807 Total current765,750765,750755,25110,499770,372 Capital outlay3,0003,000 - 3,0002,583 Total park maintenance768,750768,750755,25113,499772,955 Downtown maintenance: Current: Personal services - - 151(151) - Materials and supplies - - 575(575)230 Contractual services - - 3,944(3,944)11,556 Total downtown maintenance004,670(4,670)11,786 Total parks and recreation1,590,3751,590,3751,592,911(2,536)1,620,979 2005 Budgeted Amounts 90 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE - GENERAL FUND Page 6 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Expenditures: (continued) Community development: Planning commission: Current Materials and supplies$150$150$63$87$60 Contractual services2,9502,9508,360(5,410)7,611 Total planning commission3,1003,1008,423(5,323)7,671 Planning administration: Current Personal services$334,450$334,450$320,727$13,723$281,038 Materials and supplies700700195505775 Contractual services14,12514,1255,6358,49012,584 Total planning administration349,275349,275326,55722,718294,397 Senior facility commission: Current Personal services17,65017,65017,823(173)17,469 Materials and supplies22022018139 - Contractual services9,6509,6509,1165346,380 Total senior facility commission27,52027,52027,12040023,849 Total community development379,895379,895362,10017,795325,917 Total expenditures8,305,4208,305,4208,126,328179,0927,901,759 Revenues over (under) expenditures2,5002,500675,519673,0191,165,794 Other financing sources (uses): Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - - - 14,129 Transfer to 1995C G.O. Improvement Bond Fund - - - - (821,915) Total other financing sources (uses)0000(807,786) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance$2,500$2,500675,519$673,019358,008 Fund balance - January 16,275,5435,917,535 Fund balance - December 31$6,951,062$6,275,543 2005 Budgeted Amounts 91 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE NOTE TO RSI December 31, 2005 Note A LEGAL COMPLIANCE – BUDGETS The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the department level for the General Fund. 9090929292929292929292 COMBINING AND INDIVIDUAL FUND STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULES temporary - 85temporary - 859191939393939393939393 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 86temporary - 869292949494949494949494 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS temporary - 87temporary - 879393959595959595959595 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 88temporary - 889494969696969696969696 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS A Special Revenue Fund is used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS The Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and payment of, interest, principal and related costs on general long-term debt. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS The Capital Project Funds account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by Proprietary Funds). temporary - 89temporary - 899595979797979797979797 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 11 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2004 SpecialDebtCapital RevenueServiceProject20052004 Assets: Cash and investments$744,133$6,511,690$3,072,350$10,328,173$6,972,289 Accrued interest receivable11,10420,84918,54250,49541,764 Due from other governmental units1,977 - - 1,9774,885 Accounts receivable - net156,488 - - 156,488144,056 Interfund receivable108,252 - - 108,252625,948 Property taxes receivable - 28,3455,03533,38032,575 Tax increment receivable - - - - 2,472 Special assessments receivable - 739,062 - 739,0621,137,262 Prepaid items523 - - 523523 Total assets$1,022,477$7,299,946$3,095,927$11,418,350$8,961,774 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Interfund payable$ - $53,818$147,871$201,689$753,387 Accounts payable2,380 - 68,25870,6388,011 Contracts payable - - 40,32040,32040,320 Deposits payable20,038 - - 20,03820,038 Due to other governmental units79 - - 79136,947 Salaries payable4,234 - - 4,2344,565 Deferred revenue - 739,062 - 739,0621,102,099 Total liabilities26,731792,880256,4491,076,0602,065,367 Fund balance (deficit): Reserved 36,4326,560,884 - 6,597,3163,907,264 Unreserved: Designated489,370 - 2,984,5543,473,9242,793,012 Undesignated469,944(53,818)(145,076)271,050196,131 Total fund balance (deficit)995,7466,507,0662,839,47810,342,2906,896,407 Total liabilities and fund balance$1,022,477$7,299,946$3,095,927$11,418,350$8,961,774 Governmental Funds Nonmajor Totals 9898989898 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 12 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Special DebtCapital RevenueServiceProject20052004 Revenues: General property taxes$ - $2,225,934$162,000$2,387,934$1,833,273 Tax increment collections - - 675,798675,7984,917,923 Licenses and permits - - 1,005,8851,005,885598,523 Intergovernmental1,977 - 60,68262,65940,994 Special assessments - 453,293 - 453,2931,162,398 Charges for services154,460 - - 154,460146,944 Investment income23,85263,76368,904156,519102,234 Contributions and donations33,440 - - 33,44024,749 Other174,602 - 20,500195,102185,249 Total revenues388,331 2,742,990 1,993,769 5,125,090 9,012,287 Expenditures: Current: General government: Personal services128,892 - - 128,892142,413 Material and supplies13,238 - 302,344315,58212,717 Contractual Services100,709 - 291,298392,007103,178 Interfund interest - 5,18712,50917,69676,234 Debt service: Principal - 2,035,000 - 2,035,0001,897,000 Bond issuance costs - - - - 17,045 Interest and paying agent fees - 683,129 - 683,129628,098 Capital outlay - - 38,73138,731473,098 Special assessments payments111,471 - 118,882230,3531,660,088 Other - - 893,768893,76811,020 Total expenditures354,310 2,723,316 1,657,532 4,735,158 5,020,891 Revenues over (under) expenditures34,021 19,674 336,237 389,932 3,991,396 Other financing sources (uses): Bonds issued - 2,590,000 - 2,590,0001,198,590 Loans issued - - 105,419105,419 - Transfers in - - 911,868911,8684,936,319 Transfers out(681,751) - (7,117)(688,868)(13,003,037) Bond discount - - - - (10,264) Proceeds-sale of land - - - - 703,451 Total other financing sources (uses)(681,751)2,590,000 1,010,170 2,918,419 (6,174,941) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance(647,730)2,609,674 1,346,407 3,308,351 (2,183,545) Fund balance - January 1, as previously reported1,643,4763,759,8601,493,0716,896,4079,079,952 Prior period adjustment - 137,532 - 137,532 - Fund balance - January 1, as restated1,643,4763,897,3921,493,0717,033,9399,079,952 Fund balance - December 31$995,746$6,507,066$2,839,478$10,342,290$6,896,407 Governmental Funds Nonmajor Totals 9999999999 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 92temporary - 929898100100100100100100100100100 NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Special Revenue Funds are established to account for taxes and other revenues set aside for a particular purpose. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the related liability is incurred. Contribution Fund – This fund accounts for the proceeds that the City receives from charitable gambling. The City collects 10% of the net proceeds from a pull-tab operation in the City. By state statute, the fund may only be used for public safety equipment and training or programs which benefit youth. CATV Fund – Under the terms of the franchise agreement with Triax Cablevision, the City is to receive 5% of the revenues derived from cable television sales within the City. These monies are dedicated solely to improving public broadcasting capabilities, studio improvements, and other capital expenditures improving the overall cable system. Environmental Protection/Management Fund – This fund has been established to provide funding and accounting control for environmental projects. This fund includes allocations for recycling, composting, street preservation/management, eurasion milfoil and erosion control on the City’s lakes. Historic Preservation Fund – accounts for the ongoing maintenance and care for the City’s cemetary, historic buildings and newly remodeled downtown area. 101101101 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 13 NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2004 Environmental Protection/Historic ContributionCATVManagementPreservation FundFundFundFund20052004 Assets: Cash and investments$30,785 $199,388$159,874$354,086$744,133$876,050 Accrued interest receivable1901,6391,6697,60611,10416,852 Due from other governmental units - - 1,977 - 1,9774,885 Accounts receivable4,934151,554 - - 156,488144,056 Interfund receivable - - - 108,252108,252625,948 Prepaid items - - 523 - 523523 Total assets$35,909 $352,581 $164,043 $469,944 $1,022,477 $1,668,314 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable $ - $ - $2,380$ - $2,380$180 Deposits payable - - 20,038 - 20,03820,038 Due to other governmental units - - 79 - 7955 Salaries payable - 2,6521,582 - 4,2344,565 Total liabilities 02,65224,079 026,73124,838 Fund balance: Reserved for prepayments - - 523 - 523523 Reserved for youth and public safety programs35,909 - - - 35,90919,735 Unreserved: Designated for cable equipment - 349,929139,441 - 489,370533,276 Undesignated - - - 469,944469,9441,089,942 Total fund balance 35,909349,929139,964469,944995,7461,643,476 Total liabilities and fund balance $35,909 $352,581 $164,043 $469,944 $1,022,477 $1,668,314 Special Revenue Funds Nonmajor Totals 102102102 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES Statement 14 AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Environmental Protection/Historic ContributionCATVManagementPreservation Revenues:FundFundFundFund20052004 Intergovernmental: Local - grants$ - $ - $1,977$ - $1,977$4,885 Charges for services - - 2,906 - 2,9062,888 Franchise fees - 151,554 - - 151,554144,056 Investment income5324,9684,00814,34423,85230,801 Contributions and donations33,440 - - - 33,44024,749 Other - - - 174,602174,602127,768 Total revenues33,972156,5228,891188,946388,331335,147 Expenditures: Current: Personal services - 77,49251,400 - 128,892142,413 Materials and supplies2986812,872 - 13,23812,717 Contractual services17,50014,33153,15615,722100,70969,926 Special assessment payments - - - 111,471111,471119,729 Other - - - - - 2,172 Total expenditures17,79891,891117,428127,193354,310346,957 Revenues over (under) expenditures16,17464,631(108,537)61,75334,021(11,810) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in - - - - - 2,213,264 Transfers out - - - (681,751)(681,751)(7,671,829) Proceeds from sale of capital assets - - - - - 583,451 Total other financing sources (uses)0 0 0(681,751)(681,751)(4,875,114) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 16,174 64,631 (108,537)(619,998)(647,730)(4,886,924) Fund balance - January 1 19,735285,298248,5011,089,9421,643,4766,530,400 Fund balance - December 31 $35,909$349,929$139,964$469,944$995,746$1,643,476 Totals Nonmajor Special Revenue Funds 103103103 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 96temporary - 96102102104104104104104104104104104 NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Debt Service Funds are maintained on the modified accrual basis of accounting for revenues from taxes and other sources set aside for the payment of the debt obligations of the City. Principal and interest on the general long-term debt is recognized when due. General Obligation Bonds – these funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for payment of general obligation bonds or other general indebtedness and the interest thereon. Tax Increment Bonds – these funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for payment of tax increment general obligation bonds and the interest thereon. General Improvement Bonds – these funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for payment of principal and interest on general obligation improvement bonds. Revenue Bonds – these funds are used to account for the bonds issued by the EDA that are repaid through a lease-purchase agreement with the City. 105 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2004 1998A2001C2002A2003A2005C G.O.G.O.G.O.G.OG.O. Park EquipmentLibraryEquipmentPark Refunding BondsCertificateBondsCertificateBonds (345)(355)(357)(358)(365) Assets: Cash and investments$3,376,011$169,404$514,785$11,380$4,174 Accrued interest receivable2,1935952,106 - 1,566 Property taxes receivable - due from county3,8484,7412,109 - - Special assessments receivable - - - - - Total assets$3,382,052$174,740$519,000$11,380$5,740 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Interfund payable$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Deferred revenue - - - - - Total liabilities 00000 Fund balance (deficit): Reserved for debt retirement3,382,052174,740519,00011,3805,740 Unreserved: Undesignated - - - - - Total fund balance (deficit)3,382,052174,740519,00011,3805,740 Total liabilities and fund balance$3,382,052$174,740$519,000$11,380$5,740 106106106 Statement 15 2004C2000 Taxable1998B1999A2001BPublic G.O.G.O.G.O.G.O.2004AProject T.I.ImprovementImprovementImprovementG.O.Revenue RefundBondsBondsBondsBondsBonds (362)(346)(351)(354)(360)(352)20052004 $ - $436,318$1,008,883$338,979$549,076$102,680$6,511,690$3,805,915 - 4,1685,3252,5282,08028820,84912,672 - - 2,10990510,8703,76328,34532,575 - 79,217338,08624,954296,805 - 739,0621,137,262 $0$519,703$1,354,403$367,366$858,831$106,731$7,299,946$4,988,424 $53,818$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $53,818$127,146 - 79,217338,08624,954296,805 - 739,0621,101,418 53,81879,217338,08624,954296,8050792,8801,228,564 - 440,4861,016,317342,412562,026106,7316,560,8843,887,006 (53,818) - - - - - (53,818)(127,146) (53,818)440,4861,016,317342,412562,026106,7316,507,0663,759,860 $0$519,703$1,354,403$367,366$858,831$106,731$7,299,946$4,988,424 Totals Nonmajor Debt Service Funds 107107107 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2005C 1998A2001C2002A2003AG.O. G.O.G.O.G.O.G.OPark Park EquipmentLibraryEquipment Refunding BondsCertificateBondsCertificateBonds (345)(355)(357)(358)(365) Revenues: General property taxes$881,234$152,600$483,100$140,947$ - Special assessments - - - - - Investment income6,8781,7696,146 - 5,740 Total revenues888,112154,369489,246140,9475,740 Expenditures: Current: General government: Interfund interest - - - 4,378 - Debt service: Principal615,000130,000215,000125,000 - Interest and paying agent fees172,9508,062243,36710,57510,695 Total expenditures787,950138,062458,367139,95310,695 Revenues over (under) expenditures100,16216,30730,879994(4,955) Other financing sources (uses): Bonds issued2,579,305 - - - 10,695 Transfer in - - - - - Transfer out - - - - - Total other financing sources (uses)2,579,30500010,695 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance2,679,46716,30730,8799945,740 Fund balance (deficit) - January 1, as previously reported702,585158,433488,121(127,146) - Prior period adjustment - - - 137,532 - Fund balance (deficit) - January 1, as restated702,585158,433488,12110,3860 Fund balance (deficit) - December 31$3,382,052$174,740$519,000$11,380$5,740 108108108108108108108 Statement 16 2004C2000 Taxable1998B1999A2001BPublic G.O.G.O.G.O.G.O.2004AProject T.I.ImprovementImprovementImprovementG.O.Revenue RefundBondsBondsBondsBondsBonds (362)(346)(351)(354)(360)(352)20052004 $ - $ - $67,840$29,100$349,900$121,213$2,225,934$1,833,273 - 42,715306,3798,73495,465 - 453,2931,162,398 - 9,17118,3307,6877,22182163,76338,075 051,886392,54945,521452,586122,0342,742,9903,033,746 809 - - - - - 5,187882 - 465,000325,00080,000 - 80,0002,035,0001,857,000 58,17014,69848,50018,48259,13338,497683,129628,098 58,979479,698373,50098,48259,133118,4972,723,3162,485,980 (58,979)(427,812)19,049(52,961)393,4533,53719,674547,766 - - - - - - 2,590,00028,590 - - - - - - - 1,581,263 - - - - - - - (7,342) 0000002,590,0001,602,511 (58,979)(427,812)19,049(52,961)393,4533,5372,609,6742,150,277 5,161868,298997,268395,373168,573103,1943,759,8601,609,583 - - - - - - 137,532 - 5,161868,298997,268395,373168,573103,1943,897,3921,609,583 ($53,818)$440,486$1,016,317$342,412$562,026$106,731$6,507,066$3,759,860 Totals Nonmajor Debt Service Funds 109109109109109109109 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 106temporary - 106108108110110110110110110110110110 NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Capital Project Funds are used to account for the construction and financing of large capital projects. Revenues and expenditures are recognized on the modified accrual basis. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which they are incurred. Most capital projects are singular in purpose and their revenues/expenditures cannot be used for subsidizing any other operating fund. In each of these cases, bonds or other revenues received can only be used for these specific activities. The following Capital Project Funds differ in that several of the expenditure categories represent recurring types of costs, i.e., personal services, repair and maintenance of utilities, and/or recurring land improvements. Park Acquisition and Development – Cities may require the dedication of land associated with all new developments within the community, or, in lieu of land, the City may establish a permit charge equivalent to the value of the land. The City has set a consistent permit fee to be charged against all new developments except if partial land credits are/were given. All monies received through this permit process are recorded in this fund and dedicated for park purposes. 411 Lyman Blvd. Improvements – accounts for construction of the Lyman Blvd. project. 420 Street Pavement Management – accounts for sealcoating costs on local streets. 463 212/101 GAP – accounts for construction of the Highway 212/101 GAP. 464 212 Improvements State Loan – accounts for the construction costs related to Highway 212 construction. TID #2-1 McGlynn Project, TID #3 Hennepin County, TID #4 Entertainment, TID #2-2 National Weather Service, TID #5 North Bay, TID #6 Gateway West, TID #7 Eden Trace, TID #8 Presbyterian Homes and TID #9 VOP Apartments – account for financing improvements in tax increment financing districts. 101 Gap – accounts for the construction of projects related to the Highway 101 GAP. 111111111111111 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 108temporary - 108110110112112112112112112112112112 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 17 NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Page 1 of 2 December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2004 Park AcquisitionLymanStreetTax IncrementGateway andBlvdPavementDistrict 1Place212/101 DevelopmentImprovementsManagementDowntownTIF DistrictGap (410)(411)(420)(460)(461)(463) Assets: Cash and investments$1,866,467$108,821$53,031$ - $2,000$ - Accrued interest receivable10,281197253 - - 2,795 Taxes receivable - - 5,035 - - - Total assets$1,876,748$109,018$58,319$0$2,000$2,795 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Interfund payable$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $39,619 Accounts payable68,258 - - - - - Contracts payable40,320 - - - - - Due to other governmental units - - - - - - Deferred revenue - - - - - - Total liabilities108,578 000039,619 Fund balance (deficit): Unreserved: Designated for capital improvements1,768,170109,01858,319 - 2,000 - Undesignated - - - - - (36,824) Total fund balance (deficit)1,768,170109,01858,31902,000(36,824) Total liabilities and fund balance$1,876,748$109,018$58,319$0$2,000$2,795 113113113113113 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2004 TID #2-2 212TID #2-1TID #3National ImprovementsMcGlynnHennepinTID #4Weather State loanProjectCountyEntertainmentService (464)(468)(490)(491)(492) Assets: Cash and investments$ - $ - $ - $421,871$ - Accrued interest receivable - - - 2,714 - Taxes receivable - - - - - Total assets$0$0$0$424,585$0 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Interfund payable$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Accounts payable - - - - - Contracts payable - - - - - Due to other governmental units - - - - - Deferred revenue - - - - - Total liabilities 00000 Fund balance (deficit): Unreserved: Designated for capital improvements - - - 424,585 - Undesignated - - - - - Total fund balance (deficit)000424,5850 Total liabilities and fund balance$0$0$0$424,585$0 114114114114114 Statement 17 Page 2 of 2 TID #5TID #6TID # 8TID # 9 NorthGatewayTID #7Presbyterian VOP101 BayWestEden TraceHomesApartmentsGap (494)(495)(497)(498)(499)(500)20052004 $ - $609,658$ - $10,502$ - $ - $3,072,350$2,290,324 - 2,292 - 10 - - 18,54212,240 - - - - - - 5,0352,472 $0$611,950$0$10,512$0$0$3,095,927$2,305,036 $108,252$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $147,871$626,241 - - - - - - 68,2587,831 - - - - - - 40,32040,320 - - - - - - - 136,892 - - - - - - - 681 108,252 00000256,449811,965 - 611,950 - 10,512 - - 2,984,5542,259,736 (108,252) - - - - - (145,076)(766,665) (108,252)611,950010,512002,839,4781,493,071 $0$611,950$0$10,512$0$0$3,095,927$2,305,036 Totals Nonmajor Capital Project Funds 115115115115115 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 112temporary - 112114114116116116116116116116116116 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 18 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES Page 1 of 2 NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS For the Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Park AcquisitionLymanStreetTax IncrementGateway andBlvdPavementDistrict 1Place212/101 DevelopmentImprovementsManagementDowntownTIF DistrictGap (410)(411)(420)(460)(461)(463) Revenues: General property taxes$ - $ - $162,000$ - $ - $ - Tax increment collections - - - (2,473) - - Licenses and permits897,590108,295 - - - - Intergovernmental - - 3,045 - - - Refunds and reimbursements - - - - - - Investment income32,360723928 - - 10,246 Other500 - - - 2,00018,000 Total revenues930,450109,018165,973(2,473)2,00028,246 Expenditures: Current: Materials and supplies18,091 - 284,253 - - - Contractual services20,625 - 46,4016,310 - 57,953 Interfund interest - - - 10,020 - - Debt service: Principal - - - - - - Bond issuance costs - - - - - - Capital outlay38,731 - - - - - Special assessments payments - - - - - - Other2,407 - - - - - Total expenditures79,8540330,65416,330057,953 Revenues over (under) expenditures850,596109,018(164,681)(18,803)2,000(29,707) Other financing sources (uses): Bonds issued - - - - - - Loans issued - - - - - - Transfer in - - 223,000677,986 - - Transfer out - - - - - (7,117) Bond discount - - - - - - Proceeds-sale of capital asset - - - - - - Total other financing sources (uses)00223,000677,9860(7,117) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance850,596 109,018 58,319 659,183 2,000 (36,824) Fund balance (deficit) - January 1917,574 - - (659,183) - - Fund balance (deficit) - December 31$1,768,170$109,018$58,319$0$2,000($36,824) 117 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS For the Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 TID #2-2 212TID #2-1TID #3National ImprovementsMcGlynnHennepinTID #4Weather State LoanProjectCountyEntertainmentService (464)(468)(490)(491)(492) Revenues: General property taxes$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Tax increment collections - - - 102,303 - Licenses and permits - - - - - Intergovernmental48,595 - - - - Refunds and reimbursements - - - - - Investment income - - 3148,1373,130 Other - - - - - Total revenues48,5950314110,4403,130 Expenditures: Current: Materials and supplies - - - - - Contractual services154,014 - - 470 - Interfund interest - 48 - - - Debt service: Principal - - - - - Bond issuance costs - - - - - Capital outlay - - - - - Special assessments payments - - - - - Other - - 30,246 - 379,330 Total expenditures154,0144830,246470379,330 Revenues over (under) expenditures(105,419)(48)(29,932)109,970(376,200) Other financing sources (uses): Bonds issued - - - - - Loans issued105,419 - - - - Transfer in - 3,240 - - - Transfer out - - - - - Bond discount - - - - - Proceeds-sale of capital asset - - - - - Total other financing sources (uses)105,4193,240000 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance0 3,192 (29,932)109,970 (376,200) Fund balance (deficit) - January 1 - (3,192)29,932314,615376,200 Fund balance (deficit) - December 31$0$0$0$424,585$0 118 Statement 18 Page 2 of 2 TID #5TID #6TID # 8TID #9 NorthGatewayTID #7PresbyterianVOP101 BayWestEden TraceHomesApartmentsGap (494)(495)(497)(498)(499)(500)20052004 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $162,000$ - 73,020489,658 - 13,290 - - 675,7984,917,923 - - - - - - 1,005,885598,523 9,042 - - - - - 60,68236,109 - - - - - - - 4,125 - 8,1214,90738 - - 68,90433,358 - - - - - - 20,50053,356 82,062497,7794,90713,328001,993,7695,643,394 - - - - - - 302,344 - 1,6551,583650170 - 1,467291,29833,252 2,286 - - - 1114412,50975,352 - - - - - - - 40,000 - - - - - - - 17,045 - - - - - - 38,731473,098 90,74928,133 - - - - 118,8821,540,359 - - 481,785 - - - 893,7688,848 94,69029,716482,435170111,6111,657,5322,187,954 (12,628)468,063(477,528)13,158(11)(1,611)336,2373,455,440 - - - - - - - 1,170,000 - - - - - - 105,419 - - - - - 5257,117911,8681,141,792 - - - - - - (7,117)(5,323,866) - - - - - - - (10,264) - - - - - - - 120,000 00005257,1171,010,170(2,902,338) (12,628)468,063 (477,528)13,158 514 5,506 1,346,407 553,102 (95,624)143,887477,528(2,646)(514)(5,506)1,493,071939,969 ($108,252)$611,950$0$10,512$0$0$2,839,478$1,493,071 Capital Project Funds Nonmajor Totals 119 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - CONTRIBUTION FUND Statement 19 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Revenues: Investment income$ - $ - $532$532$552 Contributions and donations30,00030,00033,4403,44024,749 Total revenues30,00030,00033,9723,97225,301 Expenditures: Capital outlay General government30,00030,00017,79812,20217,419 Revenues over expenditures$0$016,174$16,1747,882 Fund balance - January 119,73511,853 Fund balance - December 31$35,909 $19,735 Budgeted Amounts 2005 120120120 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - CATV Statement 20 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Revenues: Franchise fees$125,000$125,000$151,554$26,554$144,056 Investment income3,5003,5004,9681,4683,020 Total revenues128,500128,500156,52228,022147,076 Expenditures: Current: Personal services80,20080,20077,4922,70891,946 Materials and supplies3003006823250 Contractual services10,60010,6008,3262,2741,212 Capital outlay - general government10,00010,0006,0053,995 - Total expenditures101,100101,10091,8919,20993,208 Revenues over expenditures$27,400$27,40064,631$37,23153,868 Fund balance - January 1285,298231,430 Fund balance - December 31$349,929$285,298 Budgeted Amounts 2005 121 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION/MANAGEMENT Statement 21 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 With Comparative Actual Amounts For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 2004 ActualVariance withActual OriginalFinalAmountsFinal BudgetAmounts Revenues: Intergovernmental: Local: Grants$9,000$9,000$1,977($7,023)$4,885 Charges for services - - 1,2201,2202,278 Investment income5,0005,0004,008(992)5,510 Other - - 1,6861,686170 Total revenues14,00014,0008,891(5,109)12,843 Expenditures: Recycling: Current: Personal services26,20026,20025,67552525,233 Materials and supplies4,6504,6504,3013495,278 Contractual services17,45017,4504,06813,3822,556 Total recycling48,30048,30034,04414,25633,067 Reforestation: Current: Personal services26,20026,20025,72547525,234 Materials and supplies5,1005,1008,571(3,471)5,415 Contractual services59,95059,95049,08810,86237,162 Total reforestation91,25091,25083,3847,86667,811 Total expenditures139,550139,550117,42822,122100,878 Revenues over (under) expenditures($125,550)($125,550)(108,537)$17,013(88,035) Fund balance - January 1248,501336,536 Fund balance - December 31$139,964 $248,501 Budgeted Amounts 2005 122 FIDUCIARY FUNDS Fiduciary Funds have been established to account for cash or other assets held by the City as a trustee or agent for others. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the related liability is incurred. Fiduciary Funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of the results of operations. Escrow Fund – this fund is used to account for various deposits required by the City. Moon Valley Restoration Fund – this is an escrow fund which will be used to finance restoration to a gravel pit when it ceases operation. Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund – this fund was established to account for the acquisition of property for highway construction and the related loan payable. 123123123 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Statement 22 AGENCY FUNDS December 31, 2005 With Comparative Totals For December 31, 2004 Right-of-Way Moon ValleyAcquisition EscrowRestorationLoan FundFundFund20052004 Assets Cash and investments$864,850$76,674$ - $941,524$915,178 Investment in property - - - - 2,285,889 Total assets$864,850$76,674$0$941,524$3,201,067 Liabilities Accounts payable$ - $ - $ - $ - $100 Escrow deposits payable864,85076,674 - 941,524897,467 Notes payable - - - - 2,303,500 Total liabilities$864,850$76,674$0$941,524$3,201,067 Totals temporary - 120temporary - 120122122124124124124124124124124124 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES Statement 23 AGENCY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2005 BalanceBalance 1/1/05AdditionsDeletions12/31/05 Escrow Fund Assets Cash and investments$822,093$42,757$ - $864,850 Liabilities Accounts payable$100$ - $100$ - Escrow deposits payable821,993 42,857 0 864,850 Total liabilities$822,093$42,857$100$864,850 Moon Valley Restoration Fund Assets Cash and investments$75,474$1,200$ - $76,674 Liabilities Escrow deposits payable$75,474$1,200$ - $76,674 Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund Assets Cash and investments$17,611$ - $17,611$ - Investment in property2,285,889 - 2,285,889 - Total assets$2,303,500$0$2,303,500$0 Liabilities Notes payable$2,303,500$ - $2,303,500$ - Totals - All Agency Funds Assets Cash and investments$915,178$43,957$17,611$941,524 Investment in property2,285,889 - 2,285,889 - Total assets$3,201,067$43,957$2,303,500$941,524 Liabilities Accounts payable$100$ - $100$ - Escrow deposits payable897,46744,057 - 941,524 Notes payable2,303,500 - 2,303,500 - Total liabilities$3,201,067$44,057$2,303,600$941,524 125125125 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 122temporary - 122124124126126126126126126126126126 SUPPLEMENTARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION temporary - 123temporary - 123125125127127127127127127127127127 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA COMBINED SCHEDULE OF INDEBTEDNESS December 31, 2005 Final InterestIssueMaturity Bonded indebtedness:RatesDateDate General Obligation Bonds: G.O. Park Bonds, Series 1998A4.40%-4.63%06/01/9802/01/10 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2001C3.20%-3.80%07/15/0102/01/06 G.O. Library Bonds, Series 2002A1.55%-4.85%03/01/0202/01/22 G.O. Equipment Certificates, Series 2003A1.35%-2.45%08/01/0308/01/08 G.O. Park Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C3.50%11/16/0502/01/10 Total General Obligation Bonds Revenue Bonds: 2000 Public Project Revenue Bonds4.75%-5.35%12/01/0002/01/12 Tax Increment Bonds: G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004C3.00%-6.00%08/10/0402/01/21 General Improvement Bonds: G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 1998B3.90%-4.45%06/01/9802/01/07 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 1999A3.80%-4.90%12/01/9902/01/10 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2001B4.00%-4.30%07/15/0102/01/10 G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2004A2.50%-4.00%08/10/0402/01/15 Total General Improvement Bonds Enterprise Fund Debt: G.O. Water Revenue Bonds of 1998, Series C3.90%-4.55%06/01/9802/01/09 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds of 1999, Series A3.80%-5.00%12/01/9902/01/10 G.O. Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds 2001, Series A3.50%-4.65%07/15/0102/01/12 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds of 2004, Series B4.00%-4.50%08/10/0402/01/25 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds of 2005, Series B3.75%-3.90%11/16/0502/01/21 Total Enterprise Fund Debt Total bonded indebtedness Other debt: Loan payable for construction3.81%04/19/0508/01/17 Compensated absences payable Total City indebtedness (1)Bonds included in Tax Increment District No. 1. (2)Bonds included in Tax Increment District No. 2. 128128128 Exhibit 1 PayablePayablePrincipal OriginalJanuary 1,December 31,Due in IssuePayments2005IssuedPayments20052006 $4,970,000$765,000$4,175,000$ - $615,000$3,560,000$3,560,000 515,000245,000270,000 - 130,000140,000140,000 6,095,000340,0005,755,000 - 215,0005,540,000220,000 630,000120,000510,000 - 125,000385,000125,000 2,590,000 - - 2,590,000 - 2,590,000 - 14,800,0001,470,00010,710,0002,590,0001,085,00012,215,0004,045,000 930,000145,000785,000 - 80,000705,00085,000 1,170,000 - 1,170,000 - - 1,170,00050,000 1,325,000860,000465,000 - 465,000 - - 2,585,0001,405,0001,180,000 - 325,000855,000320,000 640,000160,000480,000 - 80,000400,00080,000 2,070,000 - 2,070,000 - - 2,070,000355,000 6,620,0002,425,0004,195,0000870,0003,325,000755,000 820,000335,000485,000 - 90,000395,00090,000 1,670,000570,0001,100,000 - 160,000940,000170,000 1,645,000560,0001,085,000 - 230,000855,000200,000 7,930,000 - 7,930,000 - 40,0007,890,000265,000 - - - 5,465,000 - 5,465,000 - 12,065,0001,465,00010,600,0005,465,000520,00015,545,000725,000 35,585,0005,505,00027,460,0008,055,0002,555,00032,960,0005,660,000 - - - 105,419 - 105,419 - - - 658,732564,868511,292712,308 - $35,585,000$5,505,000$28,118,732$8,725,287$3,066,292$33,777,727$5,660,000 2005Prior Years 129129129 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS TO MATURITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS December 31, 2005 2000 G.O. ParkPublic Project Bonds,Revenue Series 1998ABond Bonds payable $3,560,000$705,000 Future interest payable 79,635136,622 $3,639,635$841,622 Payments to maturity: 2006 $3,639,635$119,130 2007 - 119,798 2008 - 120,125 2009 - 120,152 2010 - 119,899 2011 - 119,308 2012 - 123,210 2013 - - 2014 - - 2015 - - 2016 - - 2017 - - 2018 - - 2019 - - 2020 - - 2021 - - 2022 - - $3,639,635$841,622 130130130130130130130130 Exhibit 2 G.O. TaxG.O. Park G.O.G.O.IncrementG.O. Park G.O. LibraryEquipmentEquipmentRefundingRefunding Bonds,CertificatesCertificatesBonds,Bonds, Series 2002ASeries 2001CSeries 2003ASeries 2004CSeries 2005CTotal $5,540,000$140,000$385,000$1,170,000$2,590,000$14,090,000 2,441,7002,66017,591583,604266,8603,528,672 $7,981,700$142,660$402,591$1,753,604$2,856,860$17,618,672 $456,791$142,660$133,298$108,450$64,210$4,664,174 459,639 - 136,110106,900576,9881,399,435 461,526 - 133,183110,097653,0001,477,931 462,579 - - 107,979652,0001,342,710 462,821 - - 110,485910,6621,603,867 467,251 - - 107,725 - 694,284 465,873 - - 109,720 - 698,803 468,620 - - 111,345 - 579,965 470,315 - - 107,775 - 578,090 470,960 - - 109,005 - 579,965 470,686 - - 109,895 - 580,581 474,443 - - 110,440 - 584,883 472,213 - - 110,580 - 582,793 478,860 - - 110,308 - 589,168 479,249 - - 109,600 - 588,849 478,475 - - 113,300 - 591,775 481,399 - - - - 481,399 7,981,700$142,660$402,591$1,753,604$2,856,860$17,618,672 131131131131131131131131 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS TO MATURITY Exhibit 3 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS December 31, 2005 G.O.G.O.G.O.G.O. ImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovement Bonds,Bonds,Bonds,Bonds, Series 1998BSeries 1999ASeries 2001BSeries 2004ATotal Bonds payable $ - $855,000$400,000$2,070,000$3,325,000 Future interest payable - 56,835 41,840200,820299,495 $0$911,835$441,840$2,270,820$3,624,495 Payments to maturity: 2006 $ - $353,183$94,880$410,750$858,813 2007 - 333,262 91,680406,812831,754 2008 - 225,390 88,440407,224721,054 2009 - - 85,120406,438491,558 2010 - - 81,720360,131441,851 2011 - - - 78,301 78,301 2012 - - - 75,851 75,851 2013 - - - 73,313 73,313 2014 - - - 26,500 26,500 2015 - - - 25,500 25,500 $0$911,835$441,840$2,270,820$3,624,495 132132132132132132132132 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS TO MATURITY Exhibit 4 REVENUE BONDS December 31, 2005 G.O. Sewer & G.O. WaterG.O. WaterWaterG.O. WaterG.O. Water RevenueRevenueRevenueRevenueRevenue Bonds of 1998,Bonds of 1999,BondsBonds of 2004,Bonds of 2005, Series CSeries ASeries 2001ASeries BSeries BTotal Bonds payable $395,000$940,000$855,000$7,890,000$5,465,000$15,545,000 Future interest payable 36,855119,702106,8044,034,3641,867,6526,165,377 $431,855$1,059,702$961,804$11,924,364$7,332,652$21,710,377 Payments to maturity: 2006 $105,710$211,712$231,700$596,354$146,453$1,291,929 2007 106,616213,485155,225590,754432,445$1,498,525 2008 112,140214,555149,960589,954482,695$1,549,304 2009 107,389214,950144,565588,754481,633$1,537,291 2010 - 205,000139,008587,154480,195$1,411,357 2011 - - 69,718590,154478,383$1,138,255 2012 - - 71,628587,554481,101$1,140,283 2013 - - - 589,554483,258$1,072,812 2014 - - - 590,954479,945$1,070,899 2015 - - - 591,754486,070$1,077,824 2016 - - - 591,954481,633$1,073,587 2017 - - - 591,554481,726$1,073,280 2018 - - - 595,154486,058$1,081,212 2019 - - - 597,514484,513$1,082,027 2020 - - - 598,814482,284$1,081,098 2021 - - - 604,264484,263$1,088,527 2022 - - - 603,045 - $603,045 2023 - - - 610,825 - $610,825 2024 - - - 611,750 - $611,750 2025 - - - 616,550 - $616,550 $431,855$1,059,702$961,804$11,924,364$7,332,652$21,710,377 131131133133133133133133133133133 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 122temporary - 122132132134134134134134134134134134 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA TAXABLE VALUATIONS, TAX LEVIES AND TAX RATES Exhibit 5 December 31, 2005 Taxable Capacity Valuations: Tax Capacity Values Property Type2004/2005 Real estate and personal property: Hennepin County$1,222,549 Carver County 27,837,027 Fiscal disparities: Distribution 1,587,041 Contribution (2,444,291) Less: captured tax increment value(309,211) Net tax capacity$27,893,115 Tax Levy and Tax Rates: Payable 2005 Tax CertifiedCapacity LevyRate (1) Taxes levied: Revenue $6,251,82018.622 Debt Service 3,187,9349.496 Totals $9,439,75428.118 (1) Urban rate 135135135135135135135 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF DEFERRED TAX LEVIES December 31, 2005 Public ProjectG.O. Park Years ofRevenueLibraryEquipmentRefunding Levy/BondsBondsCertificatesBonds Collectionof 2000of 2002Aof 2003Aof 2005C 2005/2006$122,048$486,700$138,814$636,128 2006/2007122,548489,100141,380696,500 2007/2008122,703490,700138,173695,900 2008/2009122,603491,300 - 972,700 2009/2010122,195496,400 - - 2010/2011126,420495,400 - - 2011/2012 - 498,800 - - 2012/2013 - 501,200 - - 2013/2014 - 502,400 - - 2014/2015 - 502,500 - - 2015/2016 - 507,000 - - 2016/2017 - 505,100 - - 2017/2018 - 512,800 - - 2018/2019 - 513,900 - - 2019/2020 - 513,700 - - 2020/2021 - 517,500 - - $738,517$8,024,500$418,367$3,001,228 136136136136136136136136 Exhibit 6 TotalG.O.G.O.G.O.G.O.TotalTotal GeneralImprovementImprovementImprovementImprovementGeneralDeferred BondedBondsBondsBondsBondsImprovementTax Debtof 1999Aof 2001Bof 2004Aof 2005ABondsLevies $1,383,690$100,000$29,300$345,800$80,000$555,100$1,938,790 1,449,528100,00029,500346,900285,000761,4002,210,928 1,447,476100,00029,600346,700285,000761,3002,208,776 1,586,603 - 29,600297,900285,000612,5002,199,103 618,595 - - - 285,000285,000903,595 621,820 - - - 285,000285,000906,820 498,800 - - - 285,000285,000783,800 501,200 - - - 285,000285,000786,200 502,400 - - - 285,000285,000787,400 502,500 - - - 285,000285,000787,500 507,000 - - - 285,000285,000792,000 505,100 - - - - - 505,100 512,800 - - - - - 512,800 513,900 - - - - - 513,900 513,700 - - - - - 513,700 517,500 - - - - - 517,500 $12,182,612$300,000$118,000$1,337,300$2,930,000$4,685,300$16,867,912 137137137137137137137137 - This page intentionally left blank - temporary - 132temporary - 132136136138138138138138138138138138 III. STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) temporary - 133temporary - 133137137139139139139139139139139139 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT-WIDE EXPENSES BY FUNCTION 2003 Through 2005 (Unaudited) Parks FiscalGeneralPublicPublicand Year*GovernmentSafetyWorksRecreation 2003$2,201,345$2,587,019$5,140,028$2,578,585 20042,338,4832,618,3074,955,5982,674,954 20054,518,3552,653,3044,915,4352,867,364 *Government-wide expenses are not available for years prior to 2003 138140140140140140140140140140 Table 1 Interest onSurface Community Long-TermWater DevelopmentDebtWaterSewerManagementTotal $891,253$1,018,936$1,973,913$2,774,231$784,557$19,949,867 2,027,713822,0471,985,9082,686,146957,08621,066,242 595,878505,3672,656,3812,719,1561,039,72122,470,961 139141141141141141141141141141 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT-WIDE REVENUES 2003 Through 2005 (Unaudited) ChargesOperatingCapital FiscalForGrants andGrants andProperty Year*ServicesContributionsContributionsTaxes 2003$6,599,411$270,672$2,866,587$8,330,561 20046,647,173351,7226,162,1868,398,790 20057,430,662307,2907,041,6349,451,141 *Government-wide expenses are not available for years prior to 2003 Program Revenues 140140142142142142142142142142142 Table 2 Grants and Contributions Not RestrictedUnrestrictedGain on Taxto SpecificInvestmentSale of IncrementsProgramEarningsMiscellaneousPropertyTotal $4,804,019$59,867$331,597$98,812$582,333$23,943,859 4,623,92755,879420,222488,308540,64627,688,853 675,11745,455854,120139,89223,79525,969,106 General Revenues 141141143143143143143143143143143 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION (A)Table 3 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Parks Fiscal GeneralPublicPublicandCommunityCapitalDebt YearGovernmentSafetyWorksRecreationDevelopmentOutlayServiceTotal 1996$1,184,745$1,629,638$1,046,579$942,432$115,377$122,802$12,013,597$17,055,170 19971,209,1751,785,8101,168,113981,753161,155114,0978,996,40714,416,510 19981,328,0781,905,9411,281,540999,236175,156134,4419,903,26215,727,654 19991,161,1581,815,3521,245,6941,177,039186,153296,63810,857,29916,739,333 20001,574,7541,919,0311,903,9921,581,735201,968106,98713,191,10120,479,568 20011,681,1162,247,5251,740,2451,568,160301,43397,9349,778,44317,414,856 20021,790,7062,347,4871,769,7071,635,434321,478156,5309,784,11017,805,452 20031,742,2202,424,1251,685,6781,629,856312,44630,25711,730,39419,554,976 20041,976,8002,429,4641,773,6551,620,979325,917 - 8,399,29916,526,114 20052,049,4712,525,1341,823,5641,592,911362,1002652,718,12911,071,574 Notes: (A)Includes General, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds (Firefighters' Relief Special Revenue Fund, which was reclassified from an Agency Fund in 1996, is included for all years). 144 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES BY SOURCE (A)Table 4 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) GeneralLicensesInter-Charges Fiscal PropertySpecialandgovernmentalforFines andMiscellaneous YearTaxesAssessmentsPermitsRevenueServicesForfeituresRevenueTotal 1996$3,760,049$3,005,522$759,355$1,101,670$464,222$33,331$578,401$9,702,550 19973,745,892 2,846,648831,014 1,079,997 522,052 42,404 585,603 9,653,610 19984,681,328 3,409,5471,436,952 1,062,990 520,031 35,208 632,120 11,778,176 19994,699,433 3,431,8551,355,753 995,547 429,625 35,523 677,093 11,624,829 20005,532,608 2,992,7671,234,068 859,540 693,512 32,470 1,033,655 12,378,620 20015,749,311 1,927,7291,407,694 858,677 678,693 34,420 932,392 11,588,916 20027,619,829 2,798,9371,335,593 560,371 645,845 33,820 663,316 13,657,711 20038,292,083 1,897,0111,385,502 248,204 832,528 43,732 460,451 13,159,511 20048,443,461 2,215,9881,294,056 622,100 906,656 61,801 247,987 13,792,049 20058,455,527 934,0951,160,137 221,488 863,342 104,962 227,062 11,966,613 Notes: (A)Includes General, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds (Firefighters' Relief Special Revenue Fund, which was reclassified from an Agency Fund in 1996, is included for all years). 145145145 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BILLINGS AND COLLECTIONS Table 5 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) SpecialSpecial Fiscal AssessmentsAssessments YearBilledCollected(A) 1996$2,151,682$2,999,805 19971,858,9822,808,761 19982,884,3073,398,968 19992,835,0183,432,087 20002,715,5962,992,989 20011,824,9781,822,998 20022,071,8222,067,356 20031,712,3321,660,975 20041,228,3491,222,845 2005941,907917,257 (A)Includes prepayments and foreclosures. 146146146 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN Table 6 December 31, 2005 (Unaudited) The City is subject to a statutory limitation by the State of Minnesota for bonded indebtedness payable principally from property taxes. The City's legal debt margin for 2005 and 2004 is computed as follows: 20052004 Functional value - market value $2,808,887,900$2,549,954,700 Applicable percentage 2%2% Debt limit 56,177,75850,999,094 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit: Total bonded debt32,960,00027,460,000 Less: Special assessment bonds(3,325,000)(4,195,000) Tax increment bonds(1,170,000)(1,170,000) Revenue bonds(705,000)(785,000) Enterprise Fund debt(15,545,000)(10,600,000) Less: Cash and investments in G.O. Bond Debt Service Fund(4,064,374)(1,324,768) Total debt applicable to debt limit8,150,6269,385,232 Legal debt margin$48,027,132$41,613,862 147147147 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA RATIO OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES Table 7 FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT TO TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Ratio of Total Debt Service to TotalGeneralGeneral Fiscal DebtGovernmental Governmental Year Principal Interest ServiceExpenditures*Expenditures 1996 $9,335,000$2,678,597$12,013,597$17,055,170 70.4% 1997 6,465,000 2,531,407 8,996,40714,416,510 62.4% 1998 7,655,000 2,248,262 9,903,26215,727,654 63.0% 1999 6,295,000 2,273,234 8,568,23416,739,333 51.2% 2000 6,330,000 1,852,229 8,182,22920,479,568 40.0% 2001 7,611,350 1,426,095 9,037,44517,414,856 51.9% 2002 8,199,750 1,173,044 9,372,79417,805,452 52.60% 2003 10,660,000 1,067,03711,727,03719,554,976 59.39% 2004 7,680,000 684,127 8,364,12716,526,114 50.61% 2005 2,035,000 668,558 2,703,55811,215,810 24.10% *General expenditures include those expenditures of the General, Special Revenue and Debt Service Funds. 148148148 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICAL DATA Table 8 December 31, 2005 (Unaudited) Date of IncorporationJuly 5, 1967Election: Registered voters15,632 Form of GovernmentCouncil-ManagerNumber of votes cast in election of November 200412,860 Area of City23.78 square milesPercentage of registered voters82.27% Miles of streets, sidewalks and trails: Park and Recreation System: Streets106.8Acres of parks375 Sidewalks23.0Acres of open space365 Trails54.0Number of shelter buildings3 Number of playgrounds25 Miles of Sewers:Number of swimming beaches4 Storm Sewers60.1Number of tennis courts17 Sanitary Sewers111.5 Police Protection: Number of liftstations30.0Number of stations1 Average number of employees11 Building permits issued in 2005:Number of major crimes1,014 Permits issued902 Estimated value$76,636,375Municipal water plant: Number of customers6,779 Average number of permanent full-time employeesDaily average consumption - gallons2,571,843 (excluding the volunteer fire department)67Plant capacity - gallons8,650,000 Miles of watermains120 Fire Protection:Number of wells8 Number of Stations2 Average number of employees43 temporary - 143temporary - 143147147149149149149149149149149149 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND TAX COLLECTIONS Table 9 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Ratio of Accumulated CollectionsPercentageCollectionsDelinquent of Currentof Levyof PriorRatioTaxes to Years TaxesCollectedYears Taxesof TotalAccumulatedCurrent Year Total During FiscalDuring FiscalDuring FiscalTotalCollectionsDelinquentYear CollectedTax Levy(A)PeriodPeriodPeriodCollectionsto Tax LevyTaxesTax Levy 1996$3,302,593$3,291,91999.7%$58,019$3,349,9381.0143:1$76,3670.02312:1 19973,670,0333,654,68699.6%16,8513,671,5371.0004:156,2940.01534:1 19984,199,0604,061,36796.7%37,2694,098,6360.9761:159,7390.01423:1 19995,122,7925,078,01699.1%42,6995,120,7150.9996:161,8160.01207:1 20005,286,6185,226,46298.9%34,1315,260,5930.9951:187,8420.01662:1 20015,679,0545,646,32899.4%101,9515,748,2791.0122:151,1010.00900:1 20027,655,9167,557,37898.7%44,9557,602,3330.9930:184,2120.01100:1 20038,639,1678,206,00195.0%86,6668,292,6670.9599:1122,6900.01420:1 20048,639,1678,323,05396.3%108,9798,432,0320.9760:178,0160.00903:1 20059,439,7549,124,03096.7%41,4699,165,4990.9709:1134,2020.01422:1 (A)The tax levy has been adjusted by the Homestead and Agricultural Aid (property tax replacement) which is a revenue from other agencies and has been incorporated into Table 14. temporary - 144temporary - 144148148150150150150150150150150150 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA TAX CAPACITY VALUE AND Table 10 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Ratio of Total Tax Capacity Value Personalto Total Real Property/Property/TotalEstimated Estimated Fiscal Tax CapacityTax CapacityTax Capacity Actual Market Year Value Value Value Value Value 1996 $18,941,794 $595,508$19,537,302$972,076,6002.01% 1997 21,257,312 647,97821,905,2901,060,331,5002.07% 1998 22,117,136 549,31222,666,4481,194,012,2001.90% 1999 21,915,581 512,48622,428,0671,247,906,5001.80% 2000 26,800,207 516,02927,316,2361,593,928,1001.71% 2001 20,354,456 315,87620,670,3321,790,521,3001.15% 2002 23,068,548 321,23223,389,7802,010,114,7001.16% 2003 25,588,762 338,48425,927,2462,271,332,1001.14% 2004 28,671,487 344,80429,016,2912,549,954,7001.14% 2005 31,639,722 360,16231,999,8842,808,887,9001.14% temporary - 145temporary - 145149149151151151151151151151151151 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROPERTY TAX RATES - DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS Table 11 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) FiscalSchoolCarver YearCityDistrict #112CountyOtherTotal Tax capacity rates (per $100 of adjusted tax capacity value) 199625.0180071.2010047.321005.14700148.68700 199725.1640069.1830046.606005.84300146.79600 199827.4040063.7990047.336006.27600144.81500 199927.8910062.0350047.593007.26300144.78200 200026.8950074.2370045.744006.27600153.15200 200126.5080060.8050043.105004.49500134.91300 200237.8230029.8080053.336007.31100128.27800 200339.0390038.4380053.137007.40200138.01600 200432.9220037.5240048.443005.84500124.73400 200528.1180033.2990044.107005.56000111.08400 150150152152152152152152152152152 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA RATIO OF NET BONDED DEBT TO ASSESSED Table 12 VALUE AND NET BONDED DEBT PER CAPITA Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Less Debt for SelfRatio of Net SupportingBonded TaxGrossand TaxDebt to Net Bonded Fiscal CapacityBonded Less DebtIncrementNet BondedTax CapacityDebt Per YearPopulationValueDebtService FundBondsDebtValueCapita 199617,021$14,734,948$57,309,389$474,012$55,244,389$1,590,98810.80%93 199717,57116,466,58750,976,031428,89949,191,0311,356,1018.24%77 199818,33117,030,90453,526,441792,37347,086,4415,647,62733.16%308 199918,76017,416,08949,281,379741,15243,176,3795,363,84830.80%286 200020,37118,750,48839,431,605586,95533,706,6055,138,04527.40%252 200121,56121,448,58837,353,036410,18931,193,0365,749,81126.81%267 200222,37617,633,85934,951,430755,64023,596,43110,599,35960.11%474 200323,52419,484,75224,515,000943,74813,000,00010,571,25254.25%449 200423,43125,219,59627,460,0001,324,76816,750,0009,385,23237.21%401 200523,86427,893,11532,960,0004,064,37420,745,0008,150,62629.22%342 153153153153153153153 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT INCLUDING DEBT RATIOS Table 13 December 31, 2005 (Unaudited) Amount Applicable to NetPercentageCity of GeneralApplicableChanhassen Obligation Debtto CityShare of Debt Direct debt: City of Chanhassen$8,150,62697.36%$7,935,602 Overlapping debt: Chaska Independent School District180,905,00026.82%48,509,676 Eden Prairie Independent School District120,492,50393.00%1,125,353 Minnetonka Independent School District45,723,8490.00% - Carver County20,585,00032.94%6,780,402 Hennepin County370,442,9130.07%245,160 Hennepin Suburban Park District45,571,2020.09%39,743 Hennepin Regulatory Railroad Authority46,547,4890.07%30,805 Metropolitan Council206,623,7540.03%61,613 Subtotal1,036,891,710 56,792,752 Totals$1,045,042,336$64,728,354 152152154154154154154154154154154 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL TAXPAYERS Table 14 December 31, 2005 (Unaudited) % of Total City Net TaxTax Capacity TaxpayerType of BusinessCapacityValue Rosemount IncIndustrial$278,2961.00% IRET PropertiesCommercial273,986 0.99% Istar LLC PropertiesCommercial252,386 0.91% Northern States Power CoUtilities216,566 0.78% Target Corporation T-0862Commercial159,812 0.58% Park Avenue Lofts LLCIndustrial159,4300.58% McGlynn Bakeries Inc #366Industrial159,250 0.58% Emplast IncIndustrial141,458 0.51% Market Square Assoc Ltd PartnershipCommercial133,470 0.48% Bloomberg Companies IncCommercial131,544 0.47% Total Principal Taxpayers$1,906,1986.88% Source of Data: Carver County Auditor's Office temporary - 149temporary - 149153153155155155155155155155155155 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROPERTY VALUE AND CONSTRUCTION Table 15 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Market Property Value Fiscal Number of Number of Year Units Value Units ValueCommercial Residential 199665$13,339,700207$43,828,600$122,913,865$789,164,135 19975519,133,10027846,182,500129,227,600891,188,400 19985213,012,50042577,749,100143,066,0001,002,916,200 19995224,385,80027751,146,000186,653,9001,351,958,700 20001621,840,00032048,654,000215,426,0001,527,193,000 20012822,208,20014051,808,800182,167,3531,542,119,300 20023224,292,20030039,661,000206,036,3661,424,716,800 20038543,824,50039631,660,000242,223,3001,922,670,900 20041333,393,1509235,351,000239,429,5161,460,067,800 20053328,699,9508031,761,000252,134,1002,243,585,700 Starting in 2002 market property value was obtained from Carver County only. Residential homestead is using class 1a and 1b. Commerical and industrial is using class 3, 5(1), and 5(3). Commercial ConstructionResidential Construction temporary - 150temporary - 150154154156156156156156156156156156 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS Table 16 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) (2) Carver(3)(3)(4) CountyISD #112ISD #276Carver County Fiscal(1)Per CapitaSchoolSchoolUnemployment YearPopulationIncomeEnrollmentEnrollmentRate 199617,02127,8385,8007,0822.5% 199715,57128,6126,1807,4952.0% 199818,33132,5906,5337,6001.8% 199918,76034,2496,7507,6881.5% 200020,37136,0087,0317,6792.9% 200121,56140,5037,2087,6573.8% 200222,37639,6117,7197,6013.8% 200322,37640,8077,8387,6503.0% 200423,43142,5997,9377,6503.9% 200524,030*8,0917,6413.2% *Information is not available. Sources:(1) Federal Census Data and Chanhassen Planning Department (2) Minnesota Planning State Agency (3) ISD #112 and ISD #276 (4) Minnesota Department of Economic Security 155155157157157157157157157157157 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA REVENUE BOND COVERAGE Table 17 WATER REVENUE BONDS Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Net Revenue DirectAvailable FiscalGrossOperatingfor Debt YearRevenues (1)Expenses (2)ServicePrincipalInterestTotalCoverage 1996$2,340,402$1,921,770$418,632$110,000$29,490$139,4903.00 19972,449,4382,133,370316,068120,00056,650176,6501.79 19982,727,4842,334,886392,598255,00045,723300,7231.31 19992,655,3382,180,800474,538285,000120,149405,1491.17 20003,096,7742,274,408822,366180,000104,652284,6522.89 20013,120,4002,611,234509,166418,650173,934592,5840.86 20023,056,4942,732,591323,903420,250152,528572,7780.57 20033,373,2492,730,602642,647401,100148,907550,0071.17 20043,656,7652,515,9751,140,790505,000128,696633,6961.80 20054,003,5522,877,6951,125,857520,000432,687952,6871.18 (1) Gross revenues includes net investment income. (2) Direct operating expenses excludes depreciation. Debt Service Requirements 156156158158158158158158158158158 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 26, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m.. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman, and Greg Sticha KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES: TH 41 RIVER CROSSING UPDATE. Todd Gerhardt introduced Lisa Freese, South Metro Manager for MnDot who gave a power point presentation showing the six road alignments under discussion in the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS), the results of which will be released sometime around December, 2006. The DEIS looked at travel forecasts, traffic impacts of build and no build scenarios, environmental studies, natural resource impacts, water resource impacts, habitat impacts, park impacts, cultural resource impacts, physical impacts (i.e. noise, air quality, contaminated properties, etc.), and socio-economic impacts. The timeline for the next steps in the process includes completion of the study and draft DEIS document, federal agency review and to issue a draft of the EIS for public review sometime in late 2006. Todd Gerhardt asked for clarification of the assumptions MnDot has built into their trip numbers with the new Highway 212/312. Lisa Freese explained how the road alignment will be picked, noting that the preferred alignment should be chosen by end of first quarter, beginning of second quarter, 2007. DISCUSSION OF 2007 BUDGET. Todd Gerhardt reviewed the preliminary numbers and asked for City Council direction. Greg Sticha reviewed the preliminary 2007 budget numbers, projected versus actual numbers for the past couple years. He reviewed the available cash surplus versus potential commitments, actual debt numbers and levy numbers projected for 2007 based on certain assumptions. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification of how the CPI (Consumer Price Index) affects the budget numbers. Greg Sticha stated that typically staff uses the June CPI numbers in it’s projections. Todd Gerhardt reviewed the new employee pay compensation plan and the need to figure in cost of living increases in several of the funds. Mayor Furlong asked how building permit revenue actual versus projected numbers were coming in for 2006. Todd Gerhardt reviewed a couple of capital repairs items and stated he and Mr. Sticha will be reviewing the actual numbers monthly. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 7:00 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhard, City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 26, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT: Jerry & Jan Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Jason Miller 1851 Lake Drive West Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Brian Sullivan 5715 York Avenue So, Edina Dan Cook 7697 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie Mark Undestad Planning Commission David Jansen Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong welcomed everybody watching the meeting and asked that the agenda be amended to add the appointment of an individual to the Environmental Commission under new business. INVITATION TO THE 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION. Mayor Furlong invited all residents to join in the City’s 4th of July celebration on July 3rd and 4th. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson 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 June 12, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 12, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 6, 2006 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated May 23, 2006 City Council Summary – June 26, 2006 2 b. Resolution #2006-45: Infiltration/Inflow, PW254B: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids. c. The Preserve at Bluff Creek 1st Addition: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Plans & Specifications and Development Contract d. TH 212/Project 03-09: Approve Agreement with Zumbro River Constructors for Grading and Restoration in City Right-of-way. f. Stonefield, Project 06-07: Approve Revision to Grading Plan. g. Stonefield, Project 06-07: Amendment to Development Contract for Storm Sewer Oversizing Reimbursement. j. Accept Donation of Statue for City Center Park, Friends of the Chanhassen Library. k. Approval of Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 18, Subdivisions and Chapter 20, Zoning Ordinance. l. Resolution #2006-46: Tractor, PW016LLL: Authorization to Order Tractor for 2007 Capital Improvement Program. m. Approval of Ordinance Amending Chapter 10, Licenses, Permits, Business Regulations (Fireworks). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. 1(i). CITY’S PURCHASING POLICY: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY AUDITORS. Mayor Furlong pulled this item for discussion stating his recommendation that purchases between $5,000 and $15,000, rather than currently requiring both the City Manager and the Finance Director to sign, be changed to the City Manager only. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the amendment to the City’s Purchasing Policy as recommended by the City Auditors with one change, that only the City Manager’s approval would be required for purchases between $5,000 and $15,000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: OVERVIEW OF JULY 4TH PARADE, JEFF ANDERSON, CHANHASSEN ROTARY CLUB. Jeff Anderson with the Chanhassen Rotary Club gave a power point presentation reviewing the events associated with the 4th of July Parade. City Council Summary – June 26, 2006 3 LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Jim Olson presented the Sheriff’s Office Area Report, Area Citation List and Community Service Officer Report for the month of May. Under miscellaneous items he talked about fireworks safety, Vice Presidential visit, scooter regulations, and thanked city staff and the City Council as this was his last report to the council. Sheriff Bud Olson thanked Jim Olson for his service to the city and announced that he had been promoted to Lieutenant. Sheriff Olson recognized Jeff Enevold who will become the newest Commander in the Sheriff’s Office and introduced Ross Gullickson who will be taking over Sergeant Olson’s position with the City of Chanhassen. Chief Gregg Geske presented the fire department update for the month of May. Mayor Furlong asked Chief Geske to explain how interested people can apply to the fire department. APPOINTMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to appoint William Fouks to the Environmental Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt provided an update on the hiring process for the Assistant to the City Manager position and an update on dealings with past visitor presentation items. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT: Jerry & Jan Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Jason Miller 1851 Lake Drive West Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Brian Sullivan 5715 York Avenue So, Edina Dan Cook 7697 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie Mark Undestad Planning Commission David Jansen Chanhassen Villager PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO THE 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everyone. For those joining us here in the council chambers, as well as those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. At this time I would like to add one item to our agenda and also offer the opportunity for any additional modifications or changes, and that would be an item under new business. Consider of an appointment to an individual to the Environmental Commission. If there’s no objection we’ll take that up under new business. Is there any other changes to the agenda? If not, without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as distributed. This evening I’d like to open the meeting with a public invitation for everyone for our upcoming 4th of July festivities. The City of Chanhassen, in cooperation with the local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, the Chanhassen Rotary Club are pleased to announce the third event in our year round special event series that the City sponsors in conjunction with our partners. This year’s event will be on Monday, will begin on Monday, July 3rd and continue through Tuesday, July 4th. I would like to invite all residents and their families and friends, in town or out of town, to join us for the events and as many events as possible. The events begin at 3:30 p.m. on July 3rd with the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce Business Fair in City Center Park. Followed by scheduled events throughout that evening, including the ever popular street dance featuring Casablanca Orchestra again this year. On July 4th the events start at 7:30 a.m. with the fishing contest. I assume Mr. Hoffman will be there for that, as he usually is. And continue throughout the day, including the parade that begins at 2:30. We’ll hear more about that this evening with the presentation, as well City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 2 as the fireworks in the evening to conclude a great celebration. It’s a fun event and I would invite everyone to join me and my family for as many of the activities as they can. It’s really a good reason to stay in town and celebrate our Independence Day with the City of Chanhassen. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson 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 June 12, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 12, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 6, 2006 -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated May 23, 2006 b. Resolution #2006-45: Infiltration/Inflow, PW254B: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids. c. The Preserve at Bluff Creek 1st Addition: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approve Plans & Specifications and Development Contract d. TH 212/Project 03-09: Approve Agreement with Zumbro River Constructors for Grading and Restoration in City Right-of-way. f. Stonefield, Project 06-07: Approve Revision to Grading Plan. g. Stonefield, Project 06-07: Amendment to Development Contract for Storm Sewer Oversizing Reimbursement. j. Accept Donation of Statue for City Center Park, Friends of the Chanhassen Library. k. Approval of Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 18, Subdivisions and Chapter 20, Zoning Ordinance. l. Resolution #2006-46: Tractor, PW016LLL: Authorization to Order Tractor for 2007 Capital Improvement Program. m. Approval of Ordinance Amending Chapter 10, Licenses, Permits, Business Regulations (Fireworks). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. 1(i). CITY’S PURCHASING POLICY: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY AUDITORS. City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 3 Mayor Furlong: My only recommendation for the council there, this is, and we really don’t need a staff report. It’s an item that changes or amends, tweaks if you will our purchasing policy and it would be my recommendation that for purchases between $5,000 and $15,000, rather than currently requiring both the City Manager and the Finance Manager to sign, that we change that to the City Manager only. I wouldn’t expect this, and I talked to Mr. Gerhardt, I wouldn’t expect it to change the current policy and our Director of Finance will probably be involved reviewing all of them anyway but it wouldn’t be a required signature on the part of the Finance Director. So I would move item number (i) with the change that it would be the City Manager’s approval required between $5,000 and $15,000 and ask for a second. Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that? If not we’ll proceed. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the amendment to the City’s Purchasing Policy as recommended by the City Auditors with one change, that only the City Manager’s approval would be required for purchases between $5,000 and $15,000. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: OVERVIEW OF JULY 4TH PARADE, JEFF ANDERSON, CHANHASSEN ROTARY CLUB. Mayor Furlong: We do have this evening a representative from the Chanhassen Rotary Club, Jeff Anderson. The Rotary Club for the last 2 years I believe and now this will be the third year. His been the lead sponsor organization with regard to the Chanhassen 4th of July parade so I invite Mr. Anderson to come up and give his presentation on this year’s events. Jeff Anderson: Well thank you. On behalf of the Chanhassen Rotary and the Chanhassen Rotary Foundation I appreciate your time and we are looking forward to a fabulous parade this year. It’s going to be a lot of fun. Todd, if you could hit me off to the next one. The theme this year is going to be a Salute to Service. What does that mean? Any kind of service organization. Volunteers. Churches. Youth Groups. Veterans. Government officials. City officials. County officials. Businesses as well as their employees. Special recognition this year to Bob Meuwissen as the Rotary Club Chanhassen Distinguished Service Award Honoree. Again parade day festivities that we’re having, we’re going to have the Taste of Chanhassen again. We’re excited. We have 15 local restaurants and vendors. Of course the Rotary Beer Garden will be there. Got the Classic Antique Auto Show. The purpose for these shows and events are to give people something to do as they’re waiting for the parade to start. Come on down to the parade. Get your spot along the parade route. Where you want to be, excuse me. And come on down. Enjoy some fun. Bring some, bring your family. Bring the kids and have a good time. Give you something to do before the parade starts at 2:30. Again here’s the list of this year’s Taste of Chanhassen. A lot of local vendors. Opening ceremonies going to be at 2:30 right in front of the Judge’s stand with a Color Guard and Grand Marshals. We’ll stop the parade there and have the National Anthem. And of course the T-6 fly over is going to be back. I don’t know if we can time that but timing’s always an issue with the National Anthem and the Color Guard, City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 4 but we get it pretty close so people know what’s going on. We’re excited to have them again. That’s going to be a fun time. 87 parade entries so far, and a June 10th deadline. We’ve still got some more coming so, we’re probably going to be cutting it off after Thursday. We’ve got 14 paid entertainment groups, which includes 9 bands. We’re got some clowns. Live horses. Motorcycles. Classic trucks. Cars. Tractors, as well as representatives of 30 local businesses, plus political, religious groups and all that sort of fun. Community groups and neighborhood groups. Some of the highlights to those, again we’re going to have the Gopher State Railway, which is a replica steam train. The Minnesota Equestrian Drill Team, and again I’ve touched on the T-6 planes. They’ll be sponsored by Exler Corporation, Quantum Control. The Gopher State Railway will be sponsored by Travel Advisors and American Express. And we just want to give as Rotary Foundation, we want to give a special thank you to the sponsors. The City of Chanhassen. Carver County. Volunteers. The donors to the Chanhassen Rotary. Especially the City of Chanhassen with the Parks and Rec Department. The Public Works Department and the Sheriff’s, the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. Helping us close the streets and we couldn’t plan this without the help of those organizations. A list of the sponsors. Special thank you to those people as well. Those will be a special thank you coming out in the Villager on that as well. And again, and to wrap up, looking for planes, trains and automobiles. It’s going to be a lot of fun. Taste of Chanhassen starts at 11:00 a.m.. Goes to 2:00 and then here comes the parade. We’re having one whether we want one or not. So it’s going to be a good time. We’re really excited to have this. And for more information on sponsorship, maps and directions, volunteer opportunities, parade line up, you can go to the web site at Chanhassenrotary.com. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Appreciate all your efforts and that of the Rotary Club and as you mentioned Mr. Anderson, all the other organizations that volunteer their time and effort because it’s not one group or one individual that makes something like this happen. Thousands of people come and enjoy the parade every year and all the other festivities and it’s really a great event, and I know it takes a lot of time and effort by a lot of people so thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I’d just like to add and thank the Rotary for their participation in the 4th of July activities. Todd constantly preaches this to organizations. What really makes this a special community is when you have outside organizations that put on events like this, not just the City and that brings their family members to participate in it and help out and I know that the Rotary is, has quite an investment in the parade. Probably not to the level that the City would ever do so we really appreciate their time and effort and monetary contributions to make the 4th of July really special in Chanhassen. I’ve been here a while and I remember you know to get people to come to this we used to give free hot dogs away and now people are paying to come here so it’s nice to see the Rotary’s involvement in this and making it a great two day event. So thank you. Jeff Anderson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Anyone else that would like to address the council during visitor presentations this evening? If not, we’ll move on. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 5 Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening, thank you. This evening for the council I have the Sheriff’s Office Area Report for the month of May. The Area Citation List for the month of May. The Community Service Officer Report and a couple miscellaneous items that I will go over also. Monthly numbers for last month, we had 106 criminal calls, which consisted of 33 Part I crimes and 73 Part II crimes, and that’s compared to 122 calls for last year for the month of May. There wasn’t a whole lot in the way of change from last year, or excuse me, last month compared to this month. We did have 29 thefts last month, which compared to 39 for last year, and there were 21 property damage reports which compared to 37 for last year. So both of those were down. In the non-criminal category we had 1,129 non-criminal calls, and that compares to 1,123 last year. And the biggest change in that category was traffic stops, which was 421 last month compared to 354 last year. And then total calls for service so far this year is 5,717 which compares to 4,732 for last year, and again the biggest change has been traffic stops, and that was 2,046 for this year compared to 1,172 for last year. And then for citations we had 284 last month and that compares to 230 for last year for the month of May. Any questions at all for the monthly numbers? Mayor Furlong: Questions for the Sergeant? Sgt. Jim Olson: Going in line with what Jeff talked about, 4th of July. One thing that the Sheriff’s office, I actually just found out about this a little bit ago. Mike Felts, the Chanhassen Deputy that is serving over in Iraq, his wife Lori and children will be in the parade this year honoring them and so Lori will certainly be looking forward to that and her children so. So with the 4th of July right around the corner and we normally start getting calls for firework complaints right around this time. A good rule of thumb is if it goes boom or flies in the air, it’s illegal. There are some legal fireworks that you can get, that you can buy at retail establishments. A legal ones include sparkler, ground spinners, snakes, glow worms, party poppers, things like that. But even with the legal ones you cannot use them in any of the parks. Even during the 4th of July so you cannot use those at Lake Ann Park for that day. As some of you may have heard, the area had a Vice Presidential visit today, which came through the city of Chanhassen and we used a number of volunteers to assist us with traffic control. It was kind of a busy day. And those volunteers include Chanhassen Fire Department, Victoria Fire Department, Carver County Posse and they were on foot, and not on their horses. The Carver County Reserve and also Carver County Explorers so I just want to say thank you from the sheriff’s office as well as the City of Chanhassen for assisting us with that. I wanted to clarify a little bit about scooters tonight as well. I’ve had some calls about scooters recently. Motorized scooters. People 12 and over can ride a motorized scooter on the street, and the definition of what a motorized scooter are is it has to have handle bars. They can either be stood on or sat on by the operator. They’re powered by electric motor or internal combustion or some sort. Some of those are electric operated. And the wheels are no more than 10 inches in diameter and their engine cannot be capable of going over 15 miles per hour on a flat surface. And again they can be operated by kids 12 and over on the streets and highways in the city. There are some operating rules that cover that. One is kids 18 and under must wear a helmet and other…on the street. If they are ridden at night, and I’m not recommending that, but if they are ridden at night, they need to have lights on them and the operator must ride as close as practical to the right hand side of the road. And they are not allowed on bicycle paths, in the parks, bicycle lanes, bicycle trails, park trails, those kinds of things so. And these are the rules but I’d encourage parents to talk to their kids about where they City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 6 can ride these scooters. I certainly would recommend that you not allow your children to ride on busy streets in the city. You know you can but you need to be so careful. There have been a couple accidents county wide you know regarding motor scooters. You need to be very, very careful with that. Tonight is my last council meeting, or last report that I’ll be doing to the council and I would like to say thank you to the council, and also to the city staff for allowing me the opportunity to serve the City of Chanhassen. The staff here is wonderful. I’ve learned a ton from them and they really serve the City of Chanhassen very well. I’ve been very impressed and I’d like to say thank you for the opportunity to be here. So with that I would like to invite up Sheriff Bud Olson and he’ll do the change over so to speak… Sheriff Bud Olson: It feels like it’s a relay and… Yeah, we should have some formal practice. Well Mayor and council and members of the public and staff that are here, I appreciate this opportunity to be here in front of you. A couple of comments before I really do the introductions, if I might. First of all, you know Mike Felts, Deputy Mike Felts is assigned through the Sheriff’s contract to the City of Chanhassen and we had a gala with the Rotary here not long ago and the Mayor made some comments, public comments and those comments have made it all the way to Baghdad. They made it all the way to Mike. We got a copy of the night and the program and Mayor, you did such a eloquent job of saying thank you to Deputy Felts and I know from his family, they were just very personally touched by your comments so I want to thank you for that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sheriff Bud Olson: Second thing is, this is a big deal what’s going on tonight and I didn’t want to shed just a little light on it. I wanted to shed a lot of light on it. We have been good partners with the City of Chanhassen for so many years with how we police your community and we’re very proud of that at the sheriff’s office, and I think that the experience that we’ve had, and it shows to me the vote of confidence that you mayor and council have shown for this model of policing that we have. I just returned from a National Sheriff’s Symposium and we talked about this contracting issue all over the country and I have to say that I take away such pride for how we do it in Carver County and I share my story all the time with my colleagues at the national level so it’s very good. I also want to take a minute if I might Mayor and just thank Todd Gerhardt and Justin Miller, who has moved on to greener pastures. Their participation in this process over the last 8 years and their trust in our assignments and who we send to this city and work with us when this contract has been very well received by the office and I want to publicly recognize you Todd and also, I missed the opportunity with Justin but have done a great job. So we’re moving ahead and the office is in transition. I have 3 new lieutenants that I’m in the process of promoting right now, because of promotions and the retirements in the sheriff’s office so I have a gap to fill in my leadership team and I want to introduce Commander Jeff Enevold. If you’d stand Jeff and maybe come on up. I think you should stand up here while we move the baton but Jeff is our newest commander in the sheriff’s office. He was a lieutenant and we promoted him to the rank of Commander which gives him the great duty of managing the police contracts in Carver County. He has a dutiful job. He has a big job to do. There’s a little…on here and we have to look at where we are today and where we’ll be tomorrow in our policing all over, and especially Chanhassen. So Jeff is here tonight to carry on with this recognition as well. City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 7 So what I need to say is that Jim Olson and before Jim Olson, Dave Potts have done a marvelous job. And Dave Potts us to a great place. Sergeant Potts and Jim Olson has taken us and moved us even further, and I think you all agree, what we’ve done in Chanhassen under Jim’s leadership has been just outstanding. And so my opportunity to praise him in public and in front of you Mayor and council, to give my heart felt thanks to Jim for his time and his dedication to the City. Jim, on behalf of the office and the citizens of Chanhassen, we thank you for all you’ve done. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Sheriff Bud Olson: Like he said, he’s done such a good job Mayor and council that he’ll be a lieutenant on July 3rd, and so we’ll be making that promotion within the office. And so we’re going to replace him with just a great, great person. He’s not long in Carver County as far as the sheriff’s office but he has already distinguished himself in his career of 12 years in law enforcement. So Ross Gullickson is our choice and your choice and you selected him. He has got a very big challenge on his hands Mayor and council because not only is he going to get promoted on July 3rd. He’s now going to come run the largest contract the sheriff’s office has, so the weight of the shoulders are getting broader and I think we’ve put them onto just a fantastic young man that’s going to come serve you. With that I’d like to introduce Ross Gullickson. And congratulations Ross. So with that I will allow him a little opportunity to introduce himself to you and to the rest of the public here and say a few words. Ross. Ross Gullickson: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, ladies and gentlemen. Good evening. From what Sheriff Olson just said, my name is Ross Gullickson. To give you a little bit of background about myself, this is my 12th year in law enforcement. I started out working part time for the City of Mankato, and then was hired full time by the Ottertail County Sheriff’s Department, which is my home area. The Fergus Falls, Bernum, Pelican Rapids area. And I relocated to the Carver County Sheriff’s Office in October of 2003. Served a brief time here in Chanhassen as a patrol deputy and then was assigned as the liaison deputy to the City of Norwood-Young America where I’ve been assigned every since. It is my pleasure to come back to the City of Chanhassen. I’m looking forward to working with each and every one of you as we take this contracting model to the next level and making sure that the citizens of Chanhassen get the police coverage that they so richly deserve. So with that, thank you for your selection and I will do the best I can for you. I’m sure there’ll be a lot of questions upcoming but I’m very excited about this opportunity so it’s a pleasure to meet you. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Sheriff Bud Olson: …comments, if I might. As you all know, I’ve invited you to many issues over the past several years talking about our police contracting model, and we really re-wrote the book on it. And part of that process is other cities looked at their local policing needs and how best they could serve their needs and the City of Norwood-Young America, Watertown, Waconia, everyone looked at that during this period of time. The City of Norwood-Young America came back and said you know, this will work for us into the future as well and we asked some of the deputies to step up and move into this new local model of policing and Ross was one of those that stepped up and did that. And I tell you sincerely the Mayor and council and city administration out in Norwood are not so happy about this change but again as you know, we’re City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 8 moving up and moving our finest in their career goals too, and so Ross has got a wonderful background coming out of that Norwood-Young America. He’s done a tremendous job. He got on their local fire department and has just melded into the community and that’s the kind of person you’re going to get. He’s very dedicated to his community. He’s very dedicated to the people that he serves so we look forward to this opportunity and I thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And I won’t try to add to what the sheriff said because he said it much better than I’ll be able to but for Sergeant Olson, from the council, thank you very much for your service over these last few years and as the Sheriff said, he continues to take the contract policing model in Chanhassen, which has served our city very, very well. We are a safe city and it’s because of the Carver County Sheriff’s Department we continue to be a safe city so we thank you for all you did and to Deputy or soon to Sergeant Gullickson, we look forward to working with you as well and congratulations in your promotion. Ross Gullickson: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Jim, didn’t we ask you to do your high school fight song when you… Sgt. Jim Olson: Fergus Falls is kind of close to Minot. Todd Gerhardt: I want to personally thank Jim too. It’s kind of a bittersweet day for all the department heads and myself because Jim was a big part of our loop and he is definitely going to be missed. I did try everything in my means to try to keep him here and, but I wanted to see Jim move on too and that’s part of life. Everybody wants to kind of move up the chain and we put the city is going to be in good hands with Ross, but we’re definitely going to miss Jim. He followed through on everything that I ever asked him to do, and definitely did all the research and followed up on phone calls with residents and concerns of safety issues and Jim thank you for your great service. We really appreciate it. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: And a single representative from the Fire Department. Chief Gregg Geske: I think we’ve got to change that up so I go first. I can’t match four people over there and their presentation there but, kind of short tonight. Of course we’re missing a few council members tonight anyways but, it was busy here in the last month for us. We were up in call numbers a little bit for the month. Call out quite a few times for mutual aid to other neighboring cities, and we did have the house fire that was noted in the council update there. We were lucky enough that the newspaper delivery guy comes at 3:00 in the morning on that day because he, the house fire did start from a lightning strike in a tree and started on the outside, so even though they had some smoke detectors inside the house, there was no smoke at all in the house and the roof was on fire completely when we arrived there so pretty lucky that the, there are people out there at 3:00 in the morning delivering the paper so we were able to wake them up and get them outside. We also will be involved in 4th of July celebration. We’re scheduling that. City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 9 We’re involved with the Kiddie Parade and blocking off the streets and leading the Kiddie Parade. We also get involved in the parade itself by decorating up our trucks and getting people out there for that. And then following that night we have the stand-by crew for the fireworks at Lake Ann and also at Lake Minnewashta so, we’re busy with the 4th of July celebration schedule. Last month here we had, went out to bid for engine replacement that will becoming up here when the future council meets, we’ll have our recommendation so proceeding with that and our truck committee going through the bid specifications on that. We have a group of six probationary members that completed their year of probation so they’re coming off probation and very luck to have another 6 members and those are the ones that Jim mentioned that we had some people sign up today for the volunteering to block off the roads and stuff and we always get a lot of real good membership participation from the new rookies so it’s good to see the new life brought into that one there. Appreciative for that so, that’s all I have to report tonight. Any questions? Mayor Furlong: Questions? People that are interested, you say you’ve got a new class here. Are you still recruiting or do you have a recruitment class you’re expecting to open? Chief Gregg Geske: Yeah, we’ll probably be taking on a class later on this fall, and we’re always open for applications. We can’t always take them on when they do apply but we do keep the applications on file and when we do add new members in the future, we generally call them back and see if they’re still interested so, if anybody is interested. We did have, last month we also did, in the last month we did participate in the Women in the Fire Service Expo and we had a couple people from our area that we’ll probably get applications from so, or anybody who’s interested, feel free to fill out an application with Mark Litfin with City Hall. Mayor Furlong: It was good to see the publicity associated with that event and not only Chanhassen being well represented but working together with the other local fire departments for that so. Chief Gregg Geske: Yeah, very well attended. All the meetings, Metro Chiefs Meetings and stuff, it was real good reports about it and we got real good feedback from the women who did attend. Mayor Furlong: Great. Okay. Chief Gregg Geske: Okay, have a nice night. APPOINTMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION. Mayor Furlong: The only item then under new business this evening was the other matter which is consideration of appointment to Environmental Commission. There’s a single opening on the Environmental Commission. Mr. Bill Fouks, William Fouks has applied. He was interviewed by the Environmental Commission and recommended his appointment and earlier this evening in a work session the council interviewed him as well, and we’d like to go ahead and appoint Mr. Fouks at this evening’s council meeting to fill that unexpired commission through I believe it’s March 31, ’09 based on the staff report so I will make that motion. Is there a second to appoint Mr. Fouks? City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 10 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, before we go on I was very impressed with Mr. Fouks and his, in the interview this evening I think he’ll be a good asset to that commission so with that I’d like to ask for the ayes and nays. Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to appoint William Fouks to the Environmental Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: The only thing we’re working on this week is interviewing for Assistant to the City Manager, and probably received 40 applications. We’ll probably going to interview 6 or 7 individuals here Wednesday and Thursday. Hope to offer them a position on Friday and have them start on Monday. Councilman Peterson: It’s good to have goals. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, but realistically we’ll probably do interviews this week. Do background checks. Narrow it down to 2 or 3 after that. Do background checks on those individuals. Check references. Bring them back for second interviews. Hoping to get something done before July 10th. Making an offer and then somebody starting by the end of the month, depending on their employment situation so. But I believe the 6 applicants that we have, there are some definitely qualified individuals in that so I’m excited to start the interviews on Wednesday and Thursday and introduce the new assistant probably in our second meeting in July. With that, still dealing with, at our last council meeting we had a couple individuals on the trail on Lyman. Waiting for a final design on that trail segment from MnDot and then we’ll sit down with those individuals. I met with the Longacres individuals, if you remember there was a large packet that came out on that. I met with them. I think we’ve got our issues resolved. Haven’t heard back from them but working with the developer to kind of lessen the impact of that wall, and some of the drainage patterns that come off the wall and into the storm water pond so. With that you got feedback on the individual that wanted to potentially close Del Rio or lessen the impact of some thru traffic there. Right now it’s kind of 50-50 so we’re probably just going to leave things the way they are and get back to Mr. Dino, or I left him a message telling him that’s what we’re working on. And I think those are the current issues that we’re working on right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Or for staff. Okay. Thank you. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. City Council Meeting – June 26, 2006 11 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Kevin Dillon and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Craig Steesz South Lake Drive East PUBLIC HEARING: LAKESIDE: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) WITH VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR PUBLID STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING TWO, THREE, FOUR AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS, AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES, SIENNA CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE 06-26. Public Present: Name Address Thomas J. Bastasz 179 Lakeview Road E. John Ringstrom 126 Lakeview Road E. Bruce Carlson 8988 English Turn Scott Frederiksen 18626 Bearpath Trail Stephanie & Thomas Drees 14727 Boulder Point Road Ken Ross 8976 English Turn, Eden Prairie Timothy Bohlman Ron Clark Construction Rodney Walker 18992 Bearpath Trail Travis Beck 3702 22nd Avenue So, Minneapolis John Harriss 250 3rd Avenue, Suite 130, Minneapolis Todd Anderson 16338 County Road 30, Maple Grove Steven Mangold 4852 Woodhurst Lane, Minnetonka Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 2 John Vogelbacher 4940 Viking Drive #608, Edina Paul Cherne 201 85th Avenue NW, Coon Rapids John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie Steven Schwieter 10072 Gristmill, Eden Prairie Rick & Linda Denman 6656 Pointe Lake Lucy Laura Cooper 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Joan Ludwig 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard David Florenzano 9470 Lakeland Terrace Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions for staff? Kurt, want to start? Papke: Yeah, I’ll start. I’ve got a couple of them here. Page 3 of staff report, background item (f). Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the applicant, yadda yadda yadda. I didn’t quite get it. What? Generous: As part of their previous conditional use permits, they are non-conforming use permits. The question was the number of boats that could be moored at the site. It had been pointed out as part of the historical, they had 15 boats, which is beyond what our ordinance was and so they sort of left that open as part of the granting of the conditional use permit back in ’93. Papke: Okay, so this is back to a. Generous: ’93 approval. Which is going away with the new conditional use permit. Papke: Okay. That was kind of confusing. Page 4 under intent. Is this within the Bluff Creek Overlay District? I know Lake Riley, Riley Creek goes just. Generous: No, it’s not within Bluff Creek. Papke: That was a little, so. Generous: It should have been stopped after clustering of development. Papke: Okay, so strike the Bluff Creek Overlay District? Generous: Yeah. Papke: Page 6. The hard surface coverage. I understand that we’re exceeding the 50% site coverage for individual lots. I’m just a little concerned here on this. Normally, quite often as we all well know when we have variances come in for hard surface coverage, the first thing the applicant asks is well can’t I average this out over all the lots in my neighborhood, okay. And we always say no. Okay? Generous: Unless you do a planned development. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 3 Papke: Unless you do a planned unit development. So that’s. Generous: That’s the distinction. Papke: That’s the rationale here. Because it’s a PUD, we can average everything together? Generous: Right, and the idea behind PUD’s is also you might just have the lots around the unit and have more common open space. Papke: Okay. Okay. Page 12. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the utility extension within Lake Riley East. Can you color this in a little bit? How bad? How long a time is this going to be? I’m just concerned with the hardship for the residents there. Generous: And I’ll request that Alyson. Fauske: Commissioner Papke, staff just looked at the location of the sanitary sewer and watermain tap connections and we just wanted to point out that they would just have to provide access to the neighborhoods since they only have one current access Lyman Boulevard. We don’t anticipate that it will be a long duration. We anticipate half a day to a day at each location. Papke: Okay. So quite brief then. That sounds pretty good. Okay. Next one here. Question on page 30 of the staff report. Condition 55. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass as depicted in the applicant’s plan is completed. Can you explain that? Is this? Generous: This is one that Mr. Hoffman put in there. I believe it’s that this connection be provided as part of this development because this trail will eventually connect to the underpass for 212/312. And so we’re building this one and we want to make sure they get that one also. Papke: So what do we mean by “is completed”? Is the developer funding this or building it? Generous: Yes, the developer has to construct it. Papke: Okay. Okay, I got it. It was just the language was a little unclear what we were really installing. Okay. Page 4 of the findings of facts. Having to do with the potential exclusion of 93 units from the, this is one of the variances we’re asking for here. A hardship for the developments, and this would exclude neighborhood residents from enjoyment of common facilities. I certainly concur with that. Could you explain how that turns into a hardship? Generous: Well as a part of, you’re creating, segregating basically a neighborhood by saying anyone outside of this 1,000 feet is, can’t enjoy the amenities that they’re paying for as a part of this association. Again we were looking at, had they changed this design and put all the condominium buildings on the south end of the project, we wouldn’t have an issue with this. Over 80% of the units. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 4 Papke: I don’t disagree with the value and the conclusion. I’m just struggling with this being, you know because we’re sticklers about this sometimes, as you well know, because we have three other variances on the agenda tonight. All of which are going to claim hardship issues, and I just want to make sure we’re clear on this so. Generous: It’s yes. It’s how do you make this development work without allowing the entire association to participate in the association amenities. Papke: Okay. So it’s more of an issue of fairness? Generous: Equity, yes. Papke: Okay. And I think that’s all I have. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: The only one I’ve got is regarding, page 15 of the staff report. Talking about the tree requirements. Are we being, it’d be the proposed for the east property line. Are we not doing anything there because of the trees that are already currently there? Generous: No. Partially this analysis was superceded after Jill finished her report and left and then the applicant re-submitted a landscape plan which is the one that you’re looking at, and it does have trees on that east property line. But we are going to require that they meet at least those, what’s required on this. We’ll do the review to make sure what they proposed. Larson: So there’s something that I don’t have that is. Generous: Well you have the plan but Jill didn’t have the same. Larson: Oh, it’s not on the report, but it’s on the plans? Generous: Yes. Larson: Okay. Never mind. Alright, that’s all I have. Thank you. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: You’re asking for a 48 for a building height rather than a 35 foot height. That’s a pretty significant difference. Are there any things that’s going to do to ruin the view or it would cause any other distractions or anything like that in that area? Generous: All the view would be within this development because to the east is the Bearpath golf course and to the west you have North Bay which is actually down from this site. So you’re not changing that. It’s just yes, it is. They’re going up. The trade off is they could get the same number of units by adding another bigger building on that and we thought that it would be better Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 5 to vary upwards in this instance for those 3 buildings rather than oh 3 or 4. Or 4 or 5 shorter buildings. Dillon: And it’s noted that the current uses that are there are going to get demolished, and maybe it’s not the concern of this commission but what’s going to happen to the residents that will be displaced and you know is there enough lead time for them to find… Generous: I’ll have the applicant address that one because we did discuss that with him so they can tell you what they’re doing. Dillon: That’s my questions. McDonald: Okay. Mark? Undestad: Just one. On the beachlot. What size, I mean how do you determine how big the beach can be? Generous: Those are based on DNR standards. Papke: I think brief discussions with Lori, the applicant will have to get a permit from the DNR for the beachlot, and that will be worked out with the DNR. Keefe: Going back to hardships and variances. Just some understanding of what the hardship is on each one of these variances. I think you talked a little bit about the 48 foot one, but on the east side, it’s a reasonable use question or hardship? Generous: Partially, is it reasonable to require this 50 foot setback? If by changing it you can reduce the concrete. More open space within the development and do other design issues within the project. And then also, usually when we have a planned development, it’s next to some other use that’s right there. Well in this case we don’t have that. Keefe: Right. Yeah, I mean I’m not, I just want to know what the hardship is. I don’t necessarily disagree with granting the variance in this case but I’m just curious what the hardship might be. And then the 1,000 foot standard, do you know why that was, why it’s 1,000 feet? Generous: I’m not sure on that one, no. Keefe: Okay. So, and the reason why we grant this is so that all residents would have the ability to use the beachlot, is that really, my hardship would be a use for all residents of this community? Generous: My assumption was that they were concerned when developing the ordinance that you know as a neighborhood might develop and then one next to it and they want to join the association to get the access to the lake and so they wanted to try to limit that. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 6 Papke: Mr. Chair? McDonald: Yes. Papke: Just because the meeting here we had some material given to us with some concern expressed by the North Bay homeowners, with drainage into their retention pond. Could staff explain the drainage patterns here and what water is going where from where? Fauske: As you can see here is Lyman Boulevard. Here is Lake Riley Drive. The existing neighborhood right here. I’m hoping people, unfortunately the colors don’t show up very well on this but I tried to, what I did was color in essentially the area that would be draining to this pond here, which is the pond of concern. This area all through here would drain through storm pipes and outlet into this pond. This pond here was designed to accommodate runoff from this site. We had our engineering consultant, one of our consulting firms verify that the existing pipe and the existing pond here can accommodate the runoff from that site. Currently the entire site drains to this pond. There’s a small depression area through here with a pipe that shows it outletting to this wetland. And then the remainder of the site through here goes to this pond right here. Papke: And that’s a new pond? Fauske: Correct. A new pond for the development. And then part of the question, part of the concern that Mr. Ringstrom had was regarding ownership and how do we have a right to do that. I pulled up, this is the plat from North Bay 2nd Addition and I outlined here in green and then highlighted that there is a drainage and utility easement over the pond area here. Again here’s Lyman Boulevard here. Here’s Lake Riley Road or to the North Bay development through here. So we do have a drainage and utility easement over that. The City is responsible for maintenance through there. Through our campaign of, through the MPS, MPCA ruling where we have to go in every, I think it says 10, every 5 years. Pardon me. Thank you. Every 5 years the City has to go and check and see if the pond has sedimented in and we’ll take out sediment in the pond if it’s removal capacity has been compromised because of sediment deposition in there. But it was designed to be a storm pond and the proposed runoff going to that pond meets the design requirements. Papke: Is there any overflow from the new pond to the pond in North Bay? Is there a cascading affect in here in essence? Fauske: Yes. The outlet to, going back to, and unfortunately you can’t see it very well on this drawing but this pond does outlet over to the west. But again it meets the rate and quantity control set forth by this pond design. Papke: So it sounds like we’ve got all the quantity issues. It seemed like from the resident’s letter and pictures that there was concern over quality as well. Phosphorous loading and so on. Perhaps when the developer gets up they can comment on plans for fertilizer and things of that nature to make sure that we address the quality issues. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 7 Fauske: Certainly, and also inherent in the design requirements for a pond, there is that, what we call a dead pool storage requirement, which is basically the volume of the pond below the outlet and that volume is determined based on settling velocities of sediments that come through the pond. So there’s a water quantity, pardon me. A water quality component inherent in the design of a pond. McDonald: I have a question for you concerning the pond. What’s the purpose of the pond? Fauske: This pond is a storm water treatment pond. McDonald: And then where does it drain off to whenever it reaches capacity? Fauske: It outlets at this location and then this location to a pond, a wetland complex that’s up here and a wetland mitigation area that’s down here. McDonald: So it doesn’t drain into Lake Riley or anything such as that? Fauske: No. Generous: Not directly. Fauske: Not directly. McDonald: Not directly, okay. Anyone else have any follow along questions? Okay. Then with that, if the applicant could come forward and address the commission. John Vogelbacher: Good evening. My name is John Vogelbacher. I’m with Sienna Corporation. I’ve got some illustrated books that I’d like to pass out to the Planning Commission, and this is just a little bit more detailed in regards to the project and building products that are proposed for the development. And I’ve got some other additional copies if anyone in the audience would like to see these. I’ll set some of these around. Do we have enough for everyone that would like one? Well appreciate the opportunity to present the Lakeside development to the Planning Commission and we have, of course we’ve been to the Planning Commission in a workshop and reviewed a lot of the design parameters of what we have put into the project. It’s evolved based on staff comments and also evolved architecturally. We feel we’ve got a real good plan and something that I think that will be a real fine addition to the housing opportunities within Chanhassen. And maybe before we get into actually the book here, if we could address possibly some of the questions that you had since they’re fresh in your mind. We could do those. I guess first of all would be the Lakeview Apartment residents that are currently residing on the property. Sienna does not own the property. We’ll be closing on the property next Wednesday. The leases that are currently in the complex, there’s 170 units in the apartment complex right now. There’s approximately about 100 of those occupied. The leases provide for a 60 day notice both from the landlord and from the tenant. We realize that relocation for some of the tenants is going to be difficult so we’ve put together through the Carver County HRA a program which we can assist them. Sunday, July 2nd we’ll have a Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 8 neighborhood meeting on that site for all the residents which would be to deliver a set of options for them that the HRA is going to be providing for us so we’ve worked with Julie and Mary over at the Carver County HRA office to put together a package to you know, identify particular locations that they might be able to find. In addition to doing that, we’ve got a couple translators that will help for those that may have difficulty in terms of, at the language barrier. What we’ll be doing for them, which will be the assistance to help them relocate is we have a truck dedicated to help them move. We also would provide the deposit back to them immediately upon their vacation of the rental space, and we also have a program where, though there is a 60 day notice, we’ve allowed them to vacate their space as soon as they wanted to. In addition to that, if they vacated the 60 day time period, for every day that they would vacate prior to that we’d give them $20.00, so generally if a tenant had a place to go. Wanted to relocate on July 1st or June 30th, they would receive about $1,200 from us in cash, plus their deposit and I think that’s, along with transportation if they need it, and enlist the help of the HRA, we think for a lot of those tenants that are there, that will provide a great deal of assistance and try to get them relocated so. We realize that there’ll be some tenants that will need a little more tender loving care and we’re certainly not going to put a family out on the street. We would not do that so that’s our program through the HRA to help to assist existing tenants on the property. I think some of the other questions we had, the ponding issue, and Paul Cherne is here who’s our civil engineer and I’m not an engineer but I did want to maybe clarify a little bit of the capacity that’s in that pond. There’s about 4 feet of bounce in that pond, so the outlet pipe or the pipe that takes it back into the North Bay project, there’s actually 4 feet of holding capacity in that pond from it’s normal water elevation and it’s high water elevation so there’s quite a bit of time period from which water that would… In addition to that component which currently isn’t in place, and the water that does leave this site goes into that pond untreated, we would be treating it but in addition to that, what we would be doing is using that pond as a reservoir for that overall irrigation system for the whole project, and then there’ll be a recharge well for the pond. So if certainly during time periods of July and August where it gets very warm and you do have more of an opportunity for algae growth within a pond, that’s the worst time and so at that time period there’s usually not a lot of rain so at that time period we’re recharging on a daily basis with ground water which will again provide for a much greater degree of clarity in that water. So I know that’s an issue and a lot of it is unknown based on not knowing what’s going to happen. But I think really this particular project will actually support a great deal of degree of more water quality as that water’s leaving the site. Paul, did you have anything else to add in regards to the ponding? Paul Cherne: Yeah, I think that’s kind of…unless they’ve got a real specific question. John Vogelbacher: Some of the other items that were discussed was the distance from the recreational beachlot, and Bob correct me if I’m wrong but the ordinance provides that 80% of the occupants that are going to be using the beachlot live within 1,000 feet of the lot itself. And I know when we did, when we were here at the workshop meeting I know that the calculations in the staff report, I mean I guess my calculations, I’ll have to check my math. Maybe I did it wrong or something but as I look at that and looked at the distance of 1,000 feet and then took 80% of that and then took the additional amount of residents that would be outside of that distance to come up with 100%, what happens to us is that Building C. If I can turn. How do we turn this map up? Oh thank you… Building C I believe, and I wish I would have brought that Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 9 with me but what happened to us is that just part of Building C would be qualified to use the recreational beachlot. And it just seemed, and I guess if you look at the hardship, in terms of administering the project, what we would have would be some sort of a portion of that building that would qualify to use the beachlot. The other portion of the building could not. And we believe that we have a contiguous site and the site is well laid out. We have a professional property manager to manage the facility which is a dramatic difference than what’s currently occurring on the property. Real high quality amenities and a security system on the lake. You know we certainly understand the reasoning behind the ordinance but I guess the hardship would be how did you administer that when you have a portion of the building on I guess what we would have as maybe the first flood would maybe use the beachlot and the other two or three floors would not. And we think it just provides a very difficult administration. And there is some inequities relative to you know a person living on this property and certainly being part of the whole association, yet not being able to enjoy the whole benefits of what’s provided for the far, far majority of the rest of the residents of the project. I’d like to just talk a little bit about the building height issue and again there was a question about the hardship and I, John Harriss who is the architect for the condominium buildings, he’ll be pulling together, providing a lot more information in regards to the detailing and the design of the buildings, but it’s probably not expressed so well in the staff report but Building A is a 3 story building. Building B is a modified 4 story building, which steps from the east to the west. And then Building C, we really haven’t gone through a whole design parameter on Building C yet, but I guess what the concept was in Building A and we talked about this and that is, the roof on that building which is an attractive feature, also increases the height of the building, but it is a 3 story building. And could have done a flat roof. It would have dropped the height considerably. One of the objectives though was to make it have a more residential feel. As you look at all the properties that are on the other side of the fairway, or the other properties that are on the west side of the property line, the townhomes, they all have a pitched roof and so that was really more of the thinking there was to make that building have more of a residential feel to it. And certainly the height can be reduced if you went with a flat roof, but we just didn’t feel that architecturally that would be the best look. I think what I’d like to do is just kind of continue through the book and maybe I’ve missed a couple items that were discussed but I hope I took well enough notes if there’s any other particular comments that the Planning Commission had relative to the staff report I’d be glad to answer those but maybe I could just run through our book here and kind of describe the project a little bit better in terms of what we’re proposing to the city. I think Bob had mentioned the development of the beaches on the property and that would actually be a permit that we would get from the Department of Natural Resources. Certainly that would be regulated by them. The actual beachlot is part of the city ordinances and relative to the amount of lineal feet of shoreline we have which is about 1,100 and we’ve got about 57,000 square feet of surface area, which would qualify for the recreational beachlot. Actually for two of them, and so what we’d like to do is propose for two 50 foot beaches on that property. They’re separated quite a bit. Almost probably about 800 to 900 feet apart, and I’m not so sure that that’s a variance or such. I mean we do qualify for two beachlots which would allow you to have a beach on each lot. We’re combining the docks of the two beachlots into one, which is provided for in the ordinance, and that’s just to consolidate and to provide one source of management for the boats on the recreational beachlot. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 10 Papke: Question on the beachlot, both for staff and the developer. One of the applications we’ve seen a lot of in the past couple years is the request by a homeowners associations or homeowner for an additional dock. Okay, one of their neighbors has a dock or they have an existing dock on a community lot and they want to add another dock. Now in this particular case you’re giving up what is currently a dock. What, how final is this? My concern is obvious. I don’t want to have you guys come back 5 years from now and say you know we really want that dock back in there again. We’ve got a bunch of residents that really want to dock their boats that way. How final is the legality of this? I know it’s a very general question, but you see where I’m going. Generous: Well whatever you approve is what they get now. They can always come back. However they’re not giving up the mooring spaces from their extra dock. They’re just consolidating into one dock. Papke: Structure but we’re giving up a launch, yes? For boats. Generous: Well they’re removing a launch that is non-conforming. We don’t permit that at any new ones. There is one on the east side of the lake for getting boats in but right now they can actually physically use that site to put, launch boats and we’re eliminating that. Papke: And what would prevent one of the homeowners from backing their boat into the beach and launching it? Is there? John Vogelbacher: Well we have a fence. Papke: You have a fence? There’s no. John Vogelbacher: Which there is no fence now. I think there’s a… Papke: …so you couldn’t back a boat trailer in there? John Vogelbacher: Right. No, and they’d drive over a bunch of gardens and stuff. I’m not saying that someone couldn’t do that but it would certainly be anyone that we would allow to do it, that’s for sure. Papke: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that this is, this doesn’t come back to haunt us 5 years from now. John Vogelbacher: No, and I think the plan that we have meets all the guidelines of the ordinance in terms I think we’re just consolidating the docks so we have one, which I think in terms of meeting those requirements, we certainly do that. McDonald: I asked you a question concerning the docks. One of the things that’s come up about these community docks is overnight docking of boats. Is that going to be allowed here or is this strictly going to be a daytime usage, first come first served? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 11 John Vogelbacher: Well what we have will be probably at a minimum 3 association owned boats. There would not be any privately owned boats in the docks. So they would only be owned by the association. The docks would be owned by the association and managed by the homeowners association. We’re allowed up to 6. I don’t really know if that’s exactly how many we’ll have. I don’t think that will be the case. Part of that is you know you have association fees and somebody’s got to pay for 6 boats and so it’d be somewhere between there. Probably a minimum of 3 and it could not be any more than 6. McDonald: Okay, because on the drawing you show slips for 6 boats. John Vogelbacher: Right, and we’re certainly willing to provide, in our developer’s agreement exactly that situation where they’re not slips that you sell, rent. Whatever they are. They’re solely just for this project, right. McDonald: Okay. John Vogelbacher: So the site amenities which we talked a little bit about, which is I guess in terms of subdivision development this is quite comprehensive in terms of the amount of landscaping and features that are built into this project, and of course the first one would be along the lake there and the park area that is designed to work as probably about 4 to 5 shade gardens. Gazebo. Some paving there. Some hardscape paving to come from the street down to the dock area. And generally the development that is east of, there’s a flat area and that’s where you see the garden area and the gazebo that’s in the very west side of that property. There really is very little, if any development and the staff report indicates some concern about the trail construction from the, let’s say the active area where the docks are through the park area which would be back towards the east. And what we propose to do in there is as minimal as we possibly can, which would be this trail might be as little as 2 feet of width in some areas, depending upon what the site gives us. Not intended to be a 4 foot or 5 foot or 6 foot trail, nor any paving or bituminous. It would probably be more liken to a hiking trail then a trail that you might see like in a park area. And because it is very rugged through there. The topography is very steep. Very heavily wooded and we’d like to just basically keep it that way and that’s kind of part of the experience that we’re trying to create here is really more of a hike through the woods there than more of a parkland trail that you would find certainly through the rest of our project. As we go across the street, and again we would have a fence, an ornamental fence that would control access into the park area on the lake. As you go across the street on Lyman, we have a community building which is approximately 5,000 square feet and that’s kind of a party or gathering area for the whole project. In the lower level of that building is a fitness area with restrooms and also some other additional storage areas, so that’s a very good looking building. There’s an elevation of that. That would be used by everyone that’s actually in the community. The other major feature that’s in the project is the waterfall at the center of the project, which is more of a center park that is to be used by all the residents. There’s a trail that runs along a stream bed that cuts through the center of the project. There’s about 14 foot waterfall that starts at the far north end, and then that drops to kind of more of a flatter area and the pictures that you see there would be very representative of what that trail or what that stream and waterfall would look like. Both pictures are actually from Windsong. That’s a golf course project over on the west side of town. The contractor that built that stream would be the same one. That’s Ravine Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 12 Construction that would be building this stream. So, and they also built that big stream complex over at Troy Byrne which is another golf course in Wisconsin, and they’re both very, very well done and the method that they use to do that is kind of, they use a slurry or kind of a concrete mix that sits in the bottom of the creekbed so you avoid erosion and things that you might typically find in a stream bed. So very good construction techniques and very good looking and that’s really part of the central part of our project is to create some gathering points and areas that would be used by the residents of the project. The only other, the other nice monument plan for the corner and that’s a waterfall feature and that’s on that northeast corner of our private drive coming off of Lyman Boulevard. I didn’t mention the decorative street lights but that picture is actually from Maple Grove and we’ve used those lights in other projects. It’s a real nice looking ornamental light. It has a fluted base and nice ornamental logo area at the top of that fixture and it really lets very little glare, so it’s a nice light in terms of the subdivision. Good looking and lights the streets up but yet reduces the glare considerably. So those are our street lights that are operated and paid for and maintained by the association. The next page is our trail and sidewalk system. There’s 3 different components to that. One of the public trails that we would be constructing, and the other trails are the private trails and there’s very little bit in terms of size. Again we talked about glare on the park. That’s more of a hiking trail. That trail that runs along the streambed would probably be about a 4 to 5 foot gravel trail. The other sidewalks, pretty much incorporate access throughout the whole project, and then we have the public trail that runs down the west side, or excuse me the east side of the site. That’s actually in Eden Prairie. Papke: Question on that before you move on. Could you give us a picture overall, if you will, of the different types of surfaces you’re using on the development. You mentioned that one of the trails is going to be gravel. I assume crushed limestone or something like that. Are there any use of pavers, textured concrete? Is this all blacktop? Is there, you know can you give me an idea of surface materials? John Vogelbacher: For the trails? Papke: Trail and streets. Are there any intersections where you incorporate use of pavers or, you know I’m just trying to get an idea of the texture of the surfaces. John Vogelbacher: I think generally the streets would all be bituminous, but certainly at the main entrance we’ll have probably somewhere between 50 to 60 feet of a paving treatment. Whether it’s pavers or stamped bituminous and colored. Or concrete. We’re not quite sure yet. But at the entrance there would be certainly a feature in the paving there. We don’t have any other plans for the sidewalks to be anything other than just typical… Keefe: Is it going to be a gated entrance? John Vogelbacher: Ah no. No. So that pretty much summarizes the overall development. I would, if we could I’d like to maybe just talk a little bit about the Eden Prairie trail. You may recall when we came to the workshop previously, the trail that we had proposed and the trail that’s actually commented to in the staff report was located on the west side of the property. And that would have certainly have been our preference. That’s why we put it on the plan. The trail that we see here is part of the required trail construction that is done in conjunction with Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 13 Bearpath. Sienna was the developer of Bearpath and the partners of Sienna are the owners and operators of Bearpath Golf and Country Club. We would have proposed to do something different. The City of Eden Prairie said you’re going to put that trail right there. The reason why we never built previous to this particular application or why it hasn’t been built was because it would have gone nowhere and the City of Eden Prairie said well that doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a trail that runs up to oh you know, 2,000 feet north of Lyman Boulevard and stops. And so now with the highway coming through and the Eden Prairie trail connection that will be farther to the east, that will take you up on the north side of the highway, the timing is right now to put the trail in. We would again would have proposed to put it on the other side of the site but this is what Eden Prairie wanted and it works. I mean it does work and so that’s part of our plan here is to construct it. We do have some other trails that connect to that which gives some good connectivity, you know pedestrian wise for both our residents, and for the residents within that immediate area. Papke: A related question. At the workshop one of the things that was still undecided was beachlot access. Underpass. At grade crossing. Where have you settled on that? What’s the design of the crossing? John Vogelbacher: Well right now what we show is a crossing just at the corner there of East Riley Lake, or Lake Riley Road East and Lyman Boulevard. If you can see here. It’s just an on grade crossing. We did look at that. It’s, it was just so difficult to do. The grades there to try and get down below that street. There’s also a watermain that runs up Lyman Boulevard. It was, I mean I think it would have been good but just sight wise it was extremely difficult to do that and we actually think this is a good alternative. We had suggested to the city staff that we’d like to see a stop sign at that corner for safety purposes, and I think that’s really more their call. If they feel like they’d like to have that, and I’m not sure what their criteria is but we think that makes some sense at that particular intersection, and again the crossing there, we’d like to see some sort of marcation, whether it’s in stamping, coloring. Some sort of a crosswalk demarcation, but again we’d be certainly happy to pay for that and again it’s really more of the city staff and their engineering and street maintenance department as to what they would like to do there. But we think it merits some additional work and what the staff would recommend, we’re not really quite sure yet. Papke: A related question, and maybe the city staff. What, I know there’s obviously some rolling hills in the area. Are there any issues with sight lines as you come over the crest of the hill there just to the east of the development? Are we going to have plenty of time to see people crossing there and stop or any issues or concerns there? Fauske: No. When we looked at this, actually at the access facing more of that proposed entrance onto Lyman Boulevard, we were taking into account the topography of the area. In order to maximize the spacing between the two access points, you’re looking at a significant grade, basically where Building A is and so we just knew that wasn’t a viable option and the necessity to get two access points so you know we can look at, we can look at where the spacing is as far as safety concerns but really it’s pushed as far east as possible. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 14 Papke: Alright. Right now the trail on Lyman ends just east of the development here or, yeah. Just west of the development. Just west. Now I noticed the trail now goes on the north side of Lyman and extends at least to the Eden Prairie borders. Do we know is Eden Prairie going to extend this all the way to Riley Park? If so, I mean that’s, this is one of my running routes so I’m near and dear to my own heart so. It’s personal, yeah. So there’s going to be a fair amount of, well if that trail does extend all the way into Eden Prairie, getting back to your issue of maybe putting a stop sign here. This could be higher traffic? Are we looking at that or is this something for Todd? Generous: Well I know Todd had them switch it over because Eden Prairie told them the trail would be on the north side. As to the stop sign. Fauske: Are you looking to stop traffic on Lyman? Papke: I don’t know. I just, you know it sounds like we’re not going to have the below grade crossing now. That’s off the table, which is fine. I don’t have an issue with that. But if we do indeed, if Eden Prairie extends the trail here all the way to Lake Riley Park, where currently the trail ends right when it hits Lyman Boulevard right now, so you have about maybe a half mile or so here where if you’re walking or running or bicycling, you’re on a fairly unimproved road. But so if that trail does go through, one would expect that there would be a fair amount of traffic through here so. John Vogelbacher: Well I can tell you that trail will be built this year. That trail that connects Chanhassen to Eden Prairie on Riley Lake Road because that trail we build. Papke: Okay. John Vogelbacher: So and again it was a situation where that was part of our developer’s agreement was to build these two trails, the one to the north and then the one east and west, and we just never did it because we had always thought that they were going to improve that road and turn it into an urban street section which has never happened and so now with all the connecting trails showing up, it’s time to put that in so. Papke: Right. So I guess I’d just ask city staff before this goes to the City Council, that we have some plan for what we’re going to do there, if it’s not a stop sign. That’s fine as long as we have you know, we know what we’re going to do. Keefe: Maybe you were going to get to it but let me ask a question about parking. Can you speak to parking? Is it 2 parking spaces per unit in the condos or is it 1? Below grade. John Vogelbacher: All of the condominium spaces, each one would have 2 spots below grade. Keefe: Okay. Underground. And then it looks like you’ve grouped some parking spaces on the streets here. John Vogelbacher: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 15 Keefe: Is that intended for guest parking or is that kind of what your thought is there? John Vogelbacher: All the parking throughout the project can be used by any resident, whether they are in one building or another. So those are all guest parking, right. That would be located or kind of spread out across the project. I’d like to kind of continue on I guess if we could. Get to just the product types and we have 3 particular builders here this evening and I’d like to have them just express certainly in a summary what their product type is. The next sheet in our book here kind of puts it in summary in terms of the different types of units and some price points. Target price points. Also the total number of units. Right now we have 233, which is part of the staff report, and that consists of 3 different number of units into 3 different condominium buildings. I’d like to maybe have Steve Schwieter come up and describe his units. Steve, he’s got an appointment he has to go to so Steve can describe the Wooddale units and Steve has been a builder over in Bearpath for years and certainly has been a very good one. We’re sure pleased to have him in our project. Steve Schwieter: Good evening. I am Steve from Wooddale Builders. Like John had mentioned, we’ve been around a long time. I started the business in ’74 and we started building townhomes around town as well as upper bracket single family for, well since then but we started building townhomes on the north side probably since 1984. We’ve done quite a few units throughout all of Eden Prairie. We have not done any project yet in Chanhassen but we look forward to this development. It entices us from the standpoint of all the amenities that they’re putting in. Chairlift systems and things. The lake amenities. It is not a new product design for us. I mean it’s a one level type product, walkout. Master bedroom first floor. First floor office. Kitchen. Dining room. Great room and a four season porch. We’ve done this style of unit before. We’ve changed the styling of the exterior to more of a cottage type look. It’s a new look in today’s request for styling. We do have both daylight units and walkouts. The daylights would be, back up to the water feature there, and we’re planning on, we typically do, we’re still working on the outside features regarding, I think we’re looking at 3 different colors but we’re trying to put, we are doing stone on the fronts. Quite a bit of stone and we’re looking at doing a different type of stone on each building to give it some flare and probably 3 different colors. They’re also using a, some of the new materials that are out today. Maintenance free type products but it isn’t the old vinyl type lap siding. It’s all shaker town look. Cedar looking textured. Board and batten type look and with a lot of the request today for this styling of unit. People are looking for maintenance free, so that’s a huge scenario. We are building a, not a, well similar product up on the Eden Prairie river bluff right now where we are using like a shaker town style unit and we’re well received back there. Other than that I guess I’m open for questions, if anybody has any. Papke: I just had one question on your preliminary landscape plan, and maybe I’ll nitpick here but your current landscaping plans show identical plantings on the north and the south side of the buildings whereas most of the other plans do not. They more take into account sunny side, shady side so just, do you tweak these as you get closer to the end to just see you know, you’d think you’d want to put the hostas on the north side and the, you know the other stuff on the south side. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 16 Steve Schwieter: Quite honestly we haven’t spent a lot of time on that, but I’m pretty demanding when it comes to landscaping and things so that will be upgraded. McDonald: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Steve Schwieter: Thank you. John Vogelbacher: So the next product I’d like to have us go over in summary is the Charles Cudd townhomes. Rick Denman is here to give you a little overview and answer your questions in regards to those units. Those are on the east and central portion of the project. Rick Denman: Thank you. My name is Rick Denman. I’m with the Charles Cudd Company. Our company’s been around for about 35 years. We primarily target the luxury home buyer. A few months ago the Sienna Group and John gave us a call and told us that this neighborhood was becoming a possibility or dream of what they wanted to do and I often wondered what would happen. I drove by that piece a number of times and I thought you know it’s just a primo piece of property. It’s got Lake Riley on one side. Bearpath on the other side and it obviously needs to be rejuvenated in some way and brought to a higher value. Very few people are going to be able to do as good a job as Sienna has really done with this layout and this format so we’re very grateful to be part of it. We’ve really taken the extra step from a design standpoint. On the plat the only correction is we actually made the buildings a little bit wider and we went to all duplex units rather than there were a couple of triples that show at the end there. Three unit buildings. We went to all two unit buildings on there and we did that primarily because the location we’re in I guess is probably one of the prime locations on the site, and I think when you’re talking about the positioning of the condominium buildings, our units are one level pretty much walkout units so we have the master bedrooms on the main floor and we’re really targeting the empty nester buyer here. Luxury home empty nester buyer. We have 12 foot plate lines on the inside. These are definitely very exciting units. Very exciting floorplans. We’re building a very similar unit over off of 394 and County Road 73, in an area called Bassett Creek Crossing, which is under construction right now. We’ve had a lot of success with people walking through those so. Our exteriors will be shake and stone. We’ve got copper gutters. Wood stained garage doors. It’s four sided architecture. We spent a lot of time on the front, the sides and the back to make sure that from all different viewpoints and view corridors that these are exceptional and you know we’re very excited about being a part of the neighborhood so, do you have any questions? I’d be happy to answer them for you. McDonald: No? Thank you very much. Rick Denman: Thank you. John Vogelbacher: Thank you Rick. And last but not least, the condominiums. Steve Mangold is here. He’s one of the partners in Lakeside Condominiums, LLC and John Harriss, and another member from his office, Travis who’ve done a lot of, building a lot of individuals have worked on these plans but I think John would like to, he’s got a rather comprehensive overview and additional information on the condominiums. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 17 John Harriss: Thank you John. I’m John Harriss with Harriss Architects and I’d like to just discuss briefly some of the features of the condominiums. We did talk about them quite extensively at the workshop. I wanted to start out chatting a little bit about why we designed these condominiums the way we did. Obviously the views from the site and spectacular and that was the prime motivator for the way we designed these buildings. Starting with Building A, and we will have a better name for that building someday soon. Right now we’re calling it Building A. It sits up on the most prominent part of the site. Highest part of the site, with the most commanding views. These units are intended to be true luxury condominium units. Are really targeting it to be the finest condominium units in the suburbs. Anywhere in Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The V shape of the building really comes from wanting to take advantage of the views and to make sure that every unit in the building has a great view. We had previously designed it as more of a rectangular building, but that was leaving some of the units kind of looking out onto this area, and not really taking advantage of the views of the lake and the golf course. So what we’ve come up with is a design that’s actually a single loaded corridor, which is much different than most condominiums out there. We have a corridor on one side, on the outside where the parking lot is. We have multiple entrances into that corridor so people don’t feel like they’re coming into a central lobby and then having to go 150 feet to a corridor. We’re really trying to make this more like a home so we have actually, we’ll have 2 to 3 elevators in the building that will go down to the underground parking. The units are ranging from 1,850 square feet to upwards of 2,500 square feet. Just under 3,000. Some of the units are intended on the top floor to be multi level units, but most of them are single level units. Will probably be 2 bedrooms with a den. 2 ½ bath would probably be a standard layout. All the units have extensive decks and outdoor spaces and very large windows. We’ll get to the elevations after I chat about the design of Building B a little bit. Building B is also in that kind of crescent shaped. Does a couple different things. It sort of embraces the view of the lake with the pond in the foreground, and also acts as a turn to this long green space. And actually at this point one can walk through a two story lobby and connect up with the ponds so there really is a sense of a connection throughout the whole site, and that was really important to us. Not to make the building seem like it was a block to the site but really more of a filter and a way to respond to the different features of the site. This building would be a little bit more traditional. It’ll be a double loaded corridor. The units ranging in size from 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. The intention is that the price point of these units would be lower. Not significantly lower but lower than Building A. So we do provide a mix of units on the site. One of the things that we wanted to do with this building to respect the neighborhood to the west, was to step it down. And you can see, it’s a flat roof building. We’ve stepped it down in a couple different terraces. These are green terraces. The top one being a community terrace. Green terrace and the lower one being assigned to the units on the end. So at this point we get down to a two story building. I felt that that was the most appropriate thing to do for this neighborhood. And we have provided in a drawing some site sections to show the planting details and the scale related to the street. You guys can jump in anytime you want with questions. Papke: Is Building B the only one that has the roof top gardens? John Harriss: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 18 Papke: Okay. Is there a reason why you did not incorporate it into the other ones or you did put it in this one was makes this one stand out as the only one that has that feature? John Harriss: Well Building A is a pitched roof so that makes that difficult. But the rest of Building B we didn’t bring in any access up to the roof because if we do that we’re going to have to bring the stair towers up. We’re going to have to bring the elevator up which is essentially going to make it a 5 story building. Even though we’d love to have a beautiful roof terrace up there, we felt we were pushing the envelope a little bit too much so we decided not to do that. Can you get a little bit, if you want to zoom in on this or not at all but. It was our intention of the design, this is Building A. This being the Bearpath, the elevation facing Bearpath. This being the elevation facing Lake Riley. The intention was to provide a highly articulated elevation and a skin of the building that was comprised of enduring natural interiors. 80% of the building is stone and brick. Two different colors of brick. The primary color being kind of a dark reddish, wood formed, kind of an old English style brick. That really is sort of the style genesis of this is sort of the English manor homes. We have some coined features and some cast on features. We’ve had stone base that is highly articulated. Very large decks. Very large windows. Papke: Question for you. The chimneys are quite prominent in the design here. Are these all functional chimneys or are they there for decoration? John Harriss: It’s a combo. We’ll probably be running some…up there but their primarily decorative. Papke: Okay. All gas fireplaces in the units? No wood burning? John Harriss: Correct. So those can be side walled vented if we wanted them to but we don’t really feel those are very attractive so. So you know our intention in terms of the scale of this, we do recognize the fact that we’re facing other residences across the fairway at Bearpath and even though it’s a very large building, we still attempted to create, break down scales of the building that would be similar in scale to the buildings across in Bearpath. If you look at a module where my hands are pointing here, a module here. Now as we march down they’re articulated enough to really break down the scale. So that was our intention there. You can see we’ve also created some units that depict maybe some loft units within the roof line on some of the corner units as well. Lake Riley elevation really more the same thing. We’re really trying to repeat some of the same elements and create some more detail. A building this size, it’s really hard to show the level of detail that we’re really intending but you know in terms of brick bonding and some of the details that we’re going to have, it’s going to be very highly detailed building. Very well crafted. The construction is going to be you know, if you can make a sound proof condominium building, this will be it and so we’re really striving to do those kind of things. Building B takes some of those same elements and some of the same concepts but it’s a flat roof building out of respect for the scale and out of respect for the idea of stepping the building down as well. These two gables being a little bit different in recalling some of the features on Building A. These are really kind of intended as a matched set, using some of the same materials and some of the same elements. This kind of portal here is the entrance from the north, coming down that long green space, so it really emphasizes the point of entry there in that two story space. That people can pass through from one end of the development to the other. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 19 We have a number of different trellis and sun control features. We recognize the fact that this building faces due south, and so we’re using the trellises as decorative features so we hope that they’ll be vines growing up all these buildings and really making it seem as part of the landscape and kind of give it some of that old kind of English manor type feel. Keefe: Are you going to have fireplaces in this one as well or, with flues and venting? John Harriss: Yes. Keefe: What sort of screening, is screening required do you think for this? I mean does Building A look down on it? John Harriss: Well there will be a parapet wall and there’s really not going to be, there will be some mechanical equipment up on the roof but they’ll be limited to the air conditioner condensers. Keefe: And so you’re thinking if you parapet that would screen them? John Harriss: Yes. Keefe: Is there any elevation or I mean is there anything from A that can kind of… John Harriss: Yeah, the next group of graphics I have are from a vignette, some perspective drawings. Can I move this out of the way a little bit? I’m not disrupting wires or anything? Generous: No. John Harriss: I don’t know if we can zoom in, if you want to zoom in on this a little bit here. That kind of gives you a pretty good overall picture. This is if you were a bird flying over Lake Riley. Looking down. So don’t have anything from the view of the windows on the third floor, let’s say this unit looking down. So this view really makes it seem like the roof top’s obviously are a lot more prominent but I think it does give you a sense of kind of how it fits into the landscape and the contours and the elevation shown on this drawing are taken directly from the grading plan, as are all the trees shown are directly from the landscape plan. So this is not a fantasy drawing. This is pretty accurate. There’s also some vignettes. This is pretty much coming in the main entrance here and we don’t show the waterfall feature because it is a little challenging graphically to put that together. But that’s kind of the view you get when you’re kind of coming into the complex. This shot here is the interior courtyard, and we are, the question was asked earlier about paving. We’re planning on doing extensive stamped concrete and things on there. We have a water feature in the center of our parking island there. So it’s really intended to be a very sense of luxury coming into this building. And then we can just see this elevation is the building facing Bearpath. And then I’ll end with this. These are kind of the same thing, some vignettes and some perspectives. Maybe we could zoom in on this, get this over here a little bit. This would be looking from the southwest. You can see these are the terraces that we discussed. This being, belonging to this unit. This is being the common terrace. These will be green roofs essentially with planted modules capable of actually growing trees. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 20 Small trees and bushes there so we’re really trying to soften that edge the best we can. You see the pond with the drainage around and Building A in the background. Looking to the east with Lake Riley over here. This is a shot that’s looking sort of northwest. The entrance, the parking entrance to Building B. Here’s a close up the terraces. Some of the articulation that you find in the facades. And then we have Lake Riley as well showing the pond in the foreground and the building. So with that I guess I’ll close and answer any questions that you might have. McDonald: Questions for Mr. Harriss? Thank you. John Harriss: Thank you. John Vogelbacher: Well I believe that concludes our presentation. I’m sure there’ll be other conversation items or questions that you might have. We appreciate the opportunity to present the project to you. We’re very pleased and excited about being part of the community and are anxious to get started. McDonald: I do have one question for you and I’m sorry I didn’t ask you as the condo builder. What about Condo C? What kind of concepts do you have for that at this point? John Harriss: I think if we were to try, if I was going to say it would probably be most like Building B. That’s you know, I think that those units will probably be a little bit smaller. Probably, and Steve correct me if I’m wrong but probably ranging from 1,200 to maybe 1,500 to 1,600 square feet. That’s our thought now but we’re kind of waiting to see how the community develops and what the most appropriate unit sizes would be for that building. But it will match the rest of the architecture. We’ll use the same materials and the same overall concept. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anything else that you want to address? Do any of the commissioners have any questions before he sits down? Okay. Well at this point we will open it up for our public meeting and I would invite anyone to come up that wants to make comments or ask questions, to step up to the podium. State your name and address and then address the commissioners. Sir, you’re first. John Ringstrom: Commissioners, I’m John Ringstrom at 126 Lakeview and I want to say that I’m really very excited about this project because it’s in my front yard and I think it’s going to be a beautiful project. I do have one concern and that is regarding the storm drainage, and I think you alluded to it a little bit before and the, let’s see. If I get rid of these. What I have here is just a little drawing of the area and this is the city built pond that is entirely surrounded by the North Bay community. And I’ve been learning a whole lot about regional ponds and duck weed and algae and everything else since this came up but one of the things that happened is, I was surprised to learn that all the water from the Sienna property is going to drain into the North Bay pond but after the very nice presentation they gave, then to tell us that part of it’s going to come into the Lakeview pond untreated. When all they have to do is add another 200 feet of pipe to get it to that side, down into their pond and treated first was a big surprise to me. And my concern is that the North Bay pond not become deteriorated. I just want to show you, I had a number of questions just regarding legality issues here and I think that maybe the city can respond to me on those. You’ve addressed some of them already and just in a little later respond Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 21 to those. If you look at the North Bay pond, you can see it’s a nice clear pond. You see reflections of trees and everything else and I am concerned that it’s going to deteriorate if it’s designed to the conditions that meet MPCA and everything else because this is another pond that is in the area and it’s designed to all the same conditions that would be the end result maybe in the North Bay pond. And I guess I have a concern that our pond not end up looking like that one. To that end, my real concern is how do we assure that that doesn’t happen. How do we assure that we keep the North Bay pond in really good shape. I think there are two things that could be done. Number one would be to re-route this untreated waste into the Sienna pond before it comes to the North Bay pond. And the other thing is, I thought okay I don’t know what’s going to happen to the pond. This seems like to be like green magic but I did talk to a number of the different associations where I walked around and talked to other associations, what they’ve done when they’ve had problems with ponds and things like that and to get rid of algae a common thing is to like put in a fountain aerator or something like that. That may not be necessary in the North Bay pond. We don’t know but I thought well okay, what if it does happen. Then how do we address that issue? So I tried to put down at least a little bit of what it might cost to install. Today, in fact this has happened today. I did have a fellow from Fountain Air out and I got a little further education. But it looks like from what we talked about, it would probably cost about $18,000 to put an aerator into the North Bay pond and it would probably cost in the range of $2,000 a year in operating costs for electrical and in and out and that kind of thing. And I guess I just want to address those issues before we get so far back and then if I, before the North Bay, before North Bay residents have a pond issue. I’d like to address it up front. And that’s all. Again I want the Sienna development to be successful and I’m really excited about it. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Ken Ross: My name is Ken Ross. My family and I live on English Turn which is the street that, on the other side of the golf course from where the development is planned. I’d like to object to three aspects of the development. The first is the 48 foot height variance of the buildings. Second is the 30 foot setback and the third is the plan to clear cut all of the trees along the entire golf course, and I’ll address those in order. First of all is the 48 foot height. We heard earlier on the presentation that the 48 foot building would be at the highest point and the most prominent point in the development. I think putting a 48 foot building in that area would really not be appropriate. When I purchased my house, which now looks on trees, it was done with the understanding that there would not be buildings at that height on the other side. And now the plan is in place to do that. Secondly, in terms of where the buildings are situated. There are things on the other side, if not just the golf course. There are buildings that look, you know that overlook, including my own house, and I again did not expect buildings to be built so close to the property line when I purchased the house. I feel that both of these things will have a significant detriment to the property value of my home by putting this building in overlooking an extremely large and very tall building on a very high point of that property. And lastly as far as the trees go. The plan which really wasn’t discussed here tonight, is to remove all of the trees along the entire golf course. Now I believe there is an ordinance that requires X number of trees to be left. The way that’s being address is all the trees are being left on the other side of I guess it’s Lyman over there, along the lake. All of the trees that currently border Bearpath are being removed. It’s being done of course so the golf course views are provided but I just think that isn’t really in the Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 22 spirit of an ordinance that says you can’t essentially clear cut trees in an entire area. That other side there really isn’t even part of a development that’s on the other side of the street. It’s not adjacent to any other property, and if you look at what the percentage would be, essentially with the exception of a small number of trees on the very corner, virtually every tree in that development is being removed in that area, and I really think that’s something that this council or this commission ought to consider when you look at the plan. So basically again you know, I’d like to object to the two variances for the 48 foot and the 30 foot. 48 foot height. 30 foot setback on the east side. And also ask you to consider the plan for total removal of all the trees on the east side of the property, which is what it is currently proposed. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and address the commission? Tom Bastasz: Good evening. My name is Tom Bastasz. I’m a resident of North Bay at 179 North Lakeview. Lakeview East I should say and I currently serve as President of North Bay Homeowners Association. I will say that in general I think the 76 individual homeowners at North Bay, a majority of them are certainly in favor of this Sienna plan. We think it’s a fine plan and we look forward to hopefully your commission’s approval of it. We do have a concern, as expressed by Mr. Ringstrom two speakers ago. If you look at the Sienna plan, you’ll see that some of the storm water is treated by their pond before it flows into the North Bay pond. But you’ll also see that some of the storm water is not treated in their pond and flows directly into the North Bay pond. We’re concerned about that. And we’re concerned about that because if you consider when the original plat was probably the original engineering was devised, what’s there now is a parking lot, the apartments and the parking lot and most of the 26 acres is natural ground, and the water will run into natural ground shall we say naturally. But now that that 26 acres could be redeveloped, it will all be, other than the buildings, it will be lawns and it will be areas that require storm water drainage. So we would request, and we know that Sienna is planning to build a fine development and they’re planning to be very good neighbors, but we would request that they please consider all of their storm water would be routed to their pond before going into the North Bay pond. And I’d add one other thing why we’re concerned about that. If you look on page 4 of the very lovely brochure that Lakeside passed out tonight, in the aerial photo you will see the two ponds, the North Bay pond existing. It looks pristine. And you’ll see the pond beyond North Bay which is all green. We at North Bay would like to prevent that and that’s why we make this request to the commission and Sienna. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up? John Bushey: Hello, I’m John Bushey at 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie. I’m the property owner to the east of the proposed development but to the south of Riley Lake Road. Our property is a remnant of an old church camp and they’re kind of in that woodsy area. Can we take a look at this here? In this area it’s all woods. Natural. Pretty much the way it was when it, since it’s been a church camp and there’s a proposal to put a second beach and a trail along this shoreline to a small beach and a trailhead right there and I’d like to explain that the property that we have is pretty much isolated and inaccessible and almost invisible from the road during the summer, and from our house, and we have some buildings. Some remnants of the old church camp that were there that will be kind of inviting to kind of an attractive place if people are allowed easy access. We maintained the buildings. Kept them painted and roofed, but we’ve Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 23 purposely kept our property very rugged and inaccessible and uninviting. Well, the addition of that trail along the shoreline has the potential of inviting people down there, and that’s fine. I’d like to request that if that beach is allowed, or if the trail is allowed into this corner here, that some natural plantings, maybe native shrubbery or something like that, relatively densely placed around there kind of contain the access to that area to prevent access to our buildings and property there. And without putting up fences or anything like that. It’s just really pretty nice the way it is and I can understand why they want access there. Regarding the trail along the lake, I appreciate that Sienna’s interested in having a very narrow trail there. It’s pretty steep bank that they’ll be going, traversing along and to put a narrow trail, that’s the only way to do it without having a major engineering exercise so I hope that they can maintain that. If the trail is allowed, that it be kept at relatively narrow and not a big cut and fill operation with retaining walls so if that could be considered, those points be considered, I’d appreciate it. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Yes sir. Tom Drees: My name’s Tom Drees. I live at 14727 Boulder Point Road in Eden Prairie and currently in the process of building on Bearpath Trail. I wanted to go or expound upon a couple things that Mr. Ross said about the trees and some of the other things that have gone on with Sienna down at Bearpath. As you all know Sienna was the builder of Bearpath. They marketed the Bearpath lots. They own the golf course. There’s 8 houses which you can see, where’s the picture here? These houses all along this road right here. A number of people I’ve talked to, it was marketed the same way by Sienna reps that there’s a 40 foot corridor on the other side of this fence that is being saved for a trail, and that these trees can never be disrupted. Now while this drawing shows there’s hardly any trees there. I don’t know if they erased them or what but we did get a little better picture in case you haven’t seen it of what the trees actually look like. So this is where we’re talking about the Building A, 48 foot high complex in their development. They’re going to clear cut this right here is the fence, so it looks like a hedge. It is a fence. Every tree you see from here to here is going to be clear cut. Some of them have 3 foot bases. Some have 6 foot bases. They’re going to be clear cut, which gives the golf course views that they’re trying to sell. The project is a nice project. The variances and the clear cutting are the issue. Sienna sold the properties on the other side to Bearpath, or to people who live in Bearpath and now they’re turning around and breaking the sales pitch that those trees are going to be disrupted to provide golf course views on the other side to make money for themselves again. So I guess the question is, how do you know exactly what they’re going to do because they’ve kind of turned the tables on all the people that live on that side in Bearpath by disrupting the views. You go from a nature view with big mature trees, and here’s another picture. The only area, you go from the edge of this picture right here all the way to the back of the green. That entire tree canopy is gone. Done. And what they’re doing, the other part of the sales pitch was, there’s a 40 foot corridor that couldn’t be touched and a 50 foot variance so in a worst case scenario you’re looking about 90 feet at a two story building. Now you’re looking at a top of a hill with all the trees clear cut. For what purpose? They said that they want to go up three stories because they have this green space they want to preserve. Otherwise it’d only be two stories. We want to put more units. Well if you look at this proposal, I can’t see any green space on there that they’re talking about. Where is the green space that they were going to add those extra units? So I guess what we’re requesting, what I’m requesting of this committee is while the project overall is Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 24 fine. That Building A is a big issue for the people that live on the other side and were given a promise by Sienna years ago when they built the Bearpath project. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Scott Frederiksen: Hello. My name is Scott Frederiksen. I also live on Bearpath Trail. I work as a career for a large commercial real estate company in the Twin Cities called Welsh Company and our business is standing up here on a regular basis and appealing to planning commissions and trying to get variances. What we’re repeatedly told when we come up here and apply for a variance is that you have to meet one of two conditions. Either there has to be a public benefit to granting that variance, or there has to be a hardship, and clearly there isn’t either of those things here tonight. The only thing that you’re doing by increasing the height variance is allowing them to get more units on the site. The only thing you’re allowing them to do by increasing, or decreasing the setback is cram the building closer to the golf course to make it more marketable and raise their sale proceeds so other than increasing the bottom line profit to Sienna, there’s no basis for granting either of these variances and I’d have a hard time telling you, you know you could support that so. And just expounding on what Tom said, even a week and a half ago they were telling us those trees would stay so this, we had to find out about this from the Chanhassen paper so it was kind of a disappointing way to hear about what’s going on in your back yard from your developer. McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else? Bruce Carlson: Hi, I’m Bruce Carlson. I’ve lived on English Turn. The same street as the other individuals here. I’d like to echo their comments and also add that the comments were made relative to the variance for the setback that there’s nothing on the other side. The fact that there’s a public trail to be built there is something that’s significant from a standpoint of what are the normal setbacks for a public trail? I’m sure public trails are being put in at various places. There are setback requirements to those, and that should be honored as well. The trees, especially given the maturity of them and the nature of them, the idea that they’ll be clear cut is pretty reprehensible and irresponsible as far as I’m concerned. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Anne Florenzano: Hi. My name is Anne Florenzano and I’m your neighbor across Lake Riley in Eden Prairie, 9470 Lakeland Terrace and I just want to add my objection also to the 48 foot variance because looking across the lake, on one of the pages, you do have a view. Let’s see if I can find it. I don’t know if you can zoom in on the photos… That photo right there is the view from across the lake and for many, many of your neighbors who live on Lake Riley, both on the Eden Prairie side and the Chanhassen side, and…I think there would be a huge difference between a two story building and what you’re proposing with a variance a three story building and how that’s going to affect what it looks like from the lake. And people come to the lake to enjoy that. Now once again I have not a problem with a lot of the architectural details and some of the planned amenities, but the variance in height is a concern. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 25 Joan Ludwig: Hi. I’m Joan Ludwig and I live at 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. It’s the first house at the corner of Lyman and Lake Riley, and I have to say that a three story building would be right out my view as well so I echo what’s been said about this variance for a very tall building. I’m also very concerned about the trees because even though I was never promised the trees, they certainly are attractive in the neighborhood. Thank you. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I would just like to address the variances because this is…to increase the profit and it’s self created…report on page 5 it’s supposed to supply a variance…for all people of all income levels. Now on page 17 of the report it says the intent of the project is for luxurious housing units at the upper end of housing prices. So they’re missing the…individual taste and expectations as stated on page 19 and we think it’s not meeting the requirements of the comprehensive plan…all income levels. Also the setbacks should have to be maintained…It should maintain all the setbacks required. Another question is also, if the OHW now…because it’s pretty hard to measure how those gazebo’s and so forth will fit on the property if the OHW is higher so I would just like to confirm that. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Okay, seeing no one else get up, I’ll close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back before the council for comments. Dan, we’ll start with you. Keefe: Well overall I think it’s actually one of the finer developments which has come before us in terms of how well thought out it is in terms of the quality or the architecture. In terms of the really the quality of the whole, and the architectural detailing on the buildings and the condominium units. The amenity levels. The landscaping that you brought in. The creek running down the middle. Really it’s just high quality and first class. I commend you for bringing that in. However I too am troubled by the height. Particularly the height variance. I think in regards to the variance on the beachlot, I can buy into the notion of hardship related to having everybody in the development have access to the beach, so I think I’m alright with that but I’m troubled by the height variance and I’m not seeing really the hardship related to that variance. So that’s my thought on that. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: I’m kind of with Dan on this too but again the height issues on there. That seems to kind of come into play all around Building A on there. We’re not really privy to what’s been said between the developers and homeowners as far as which trees stay and which trees go. I know when we create a planned unit development, that gives the developer the opportunities to do a few more opportunities to rearrange. I mean eliminate some more trees or cluster some homes and create more green space on there, and that’s what they’ve elected to do is create the new beauty out there. It sounds like the ponding issues and some of the other issues we’ve had in here have been resolved and talked about, but I think it still kind of comes back as one that on the height of Building A. That’s going to be kind of sitting up over the whole world over there Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 26 so, but I think overall I think the design is excellent and the overall project, I like it. We just need to look at that height on Building A out there. McDonald: Thanks Mark. Kevin. Dillon: Yeah. A couple things. The question I had about programs for the people that are being dislocated, they seem to do a pretty good job with a pretty comprehensive plan of addressing that so I’m pleased with that. In terms of the beach, making sure that all the residents can have access, even though they’re slightly outside the agreed…I think that makes, that’s common sense and I think that I would be fine with that. The other thing that kind of brought up is you know I don’t know about hydraulics and hydronomy about the runoff and all that but it would seem to me that, I can see where the people that have an issue with that, having their pond being exposed to water from the other development, if there’d be a way to kind of address that, I think that that would be prudent. Larson: Well everybody’s kind of covered most of the things that I had. I guess one of the issues that I had from the beginning was the trees also. Other than that, maybe I’d like to understand you know what’s going to be going up in place. I know they will be younger trees but like Mark said, you know because they’re buying the property and because it’s a PUD, they do have that right to readjust and rearrange things. I think it is an excellent plan. I’m certainly pretty much in favor of everything. The 48 foot height doesn’t bother me because it’s a nice building. It’s not ugly. If it was a big, old ugly building I would have a huge problem with it but it’s a beautiful building and I think from the standpoint of aesthetics, okay so they’re adding more units in it to help cover the cost I suppose, or should I say maybe more profit but I think it will really be an asset as far as putting in something of the stature in Chanhassen so I’m leaning towards pretty much approving it all. McDonald: Thank you. Kurt. Papke: This development brings up some interesting issues here. If we look at what we’re trying to do, the whole idea, as Bob pointed out at the beginning of this application this evening, is you know reading from the verbiage here is to relax most normal zoning district standards in order to permit density clustering, and so improve the quality. I think one of the things we’ve been struggling with here tonight is all these variances. You know other than the beachlot issue with the 1,000 foot distance, I think we’d all be hard pressed to say oh, there’s a hardship here. Okay. I don’t think hardship is really the issue. I think more the issue is the quality issue and I think that’s what we’re really getting to, and if we look at how this is guided for zoning. This is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre, and this development is coming in at 8.9 which is at the low end. I mean that’s a good thing so we’re at the low end of it and, but we’re achieving that by going higher, okay and we’re minimizing the runoff. And getting back to the water quality issues, which we’re all conscience of and striving for, I think that’s a good thing. If we made the buildings lower, we’re going to have a bigger footprint. We’re going to have more hard surface coverage. We’re going to have more runoff and more runoff issues, so I think at the end of the day that’s a good thing. But I’m struggling with you, it was very interesting to hear the public commentary. Kind of my take away on all this is, we’re going to get a more, little bit more green space within the development. Lower density and so the residents of Chanhassen benefit, but Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 27 there’s some existing residents of Eden Prairie who lose some views. Chanhassen benefits. Eden Prairie loses a little bit in this deal. So interesting dilemma here. What’s the right thing for everyone involved? If you look at the golf course, I drive down Pioneer two times every day. Right past the golf course and you see a solid wall of townhomes on, facing north from Pioneer Trail. And I appreciate the fact that some people are going to lose some views, but that’s kind of what the views are in a lot of the areas, and unfortunately every time we go into one of these developments, we chop down some trees and we put some more trees up to compensate for them. That’s kind of how it works so. It’s an interesting dilemmas here with, I believe the fact that this is really good for Chanhassen. It’s a phenomenal development for Chanhassen but there’s some folks in Eden Prairie that kind of lose some stuff as a result of it so, that’s rather unfortunate. McDonald: Thank you. I guess the only comments I have is, a lot of people have said things about profit. That we’re doing things for profit. Profit isn’t bad. That’s what makes developers come in and develop property. I understand the dilemma that the people over in Eden Prairie are having. However I would say that Sienna you know should probably do something about that. If those promises were made, that’s something you should address. I’m not sure why all the trees need to come down myself. I would think some of that being left behind might even be a good sales pitch for a person. I understand you’re looking for golf course views and that’s a decision you’re going to have to make but just be aware you’ll have to live with it. The beach front lots, I’m okay with treating this as a PUD because again at that point we get something. We give up something. I think we’re gaining a lot. I’ve seen, you know we’re doing a lot of these developments a little bit to the south of here. They’re a little bit higher density and not nearly as nice. I understand this is all upper bracket. The vast majority of us will never live there but there are people, you can talk about diversity. I think that we would like to have people that are well off within the city of Chanhassen. So I do not look at this as missing our comprehensive plan. I think Commissioner Papke called it out just right. This is not a high packed development. It meets the requirements and meets it on the low end. This is going to be a real gem of a community. The water quality. That’s something I think the city’s got to look at and address, and you’re doing that already. Before, you already got the surface water management plan. We’ve already been through it on the, I think the lake just to the, Lake Ann as a matter of fact. Or Susan. I always get the two mixed up but the city is going around on a lake and pond basis and we’re evaluating all this and that’s part of what we’re trying to do is to maintain the water quality so I think a lot of those concerns will be addressed. So I don’t see a lot of problems there. The 48 foot height variance. Again, because of the PUD and because of what we’re getting, I think it’s a good compromise to the developer. Yes, I don’t see the big hardships either. You’re absolutely right, but that’s what a PUD allows you to do. We got something in return. We’re willing to give something up. I think the 48 foot variance is a good trade off. And I think overall, except for the problem I believe that Sienna may have with some of their former customers, it looks like an excellent development and I’m sure you’ll do right by everybody. So with that. Papke: One more comment Mr. Chair? As I sat on the Surface Water Management Task Force this winter, one of the things I got hammered into my brain by our illustrious surface water management person is that water quality and you know eliminating duck weed on our water retention ponds is not a goal of our surface water management plan. They are there to treat surface water. To protect Lake Riley, Lake Ann, Riley, and Lake Ann, Lake Susan, and all the Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 28 things that we’re really trying to protect. I think it would be great is Sienna puts in an aerator to pretty up the existing retention pond. I think they do that out of the goodness of their hearts and for aesthetics because obviously they’re going to have units that are going to have views of that pond, great. Okay, but from the perspective of our goal with managing the surface water in Chanhassen, that’s not one of our objectives so anyway, just. McDonald: Well, thank you for clarify that. With that I’m willing to accept. John Vogelbacher: Mr. Chairman, may I say something? McDonald: Sure. Step right up. John Vogelbacher: I certainly appreciate the comments and concerns of the Bearpath residents because we certainly have a very vested interest with them. We’re also the golf course owners. Developed that property and I certainly have taken your comments to heart. I can assure you that myself, or anyone at Sienna would not have made those promises and I don’t know what anyone else said but I’ll certainly look into that. There isn’t any requirement or anything else that would have ever been written relative to the issue of the trees or what would have happened in Chanhassen or such. I’m not aware of that but I certainly will look into that. We have other people that do other companies that are affiliated that do sales for the project and I’ll certainly look into that. I promised before I’ll do that. Relative to some of the other comments, on the storm sewer issue, just after evaluating and talking to our civil engineer, I certainly think we can make the additional storm pipe connections so that all the surface runoff from the project goes into our treatment pond first before it leaves the site. We’ll have to add a decent amount of storm pipe but we certainly feel that that’s appropriate and we can do it. And I think that might not solve the problem totally but I think relative to that one comment, I think we can certainly do that. As it relates to the tree loss, there’s some other issues and some people…just aren’t aware of that you could maybe zoom in if you could please on the aerial photograph. Get even closer if you could. Is that? There’s not a clear cutting process going on here. Certainly the amount of trees that are in Chanhassen, those are being removed and there’s a couple reasons for that. One, the location of the buildings that we have on the property are in the proximity of the golf course to see it. When we start building there, there’s, you can’t have a tree there. The value of this property and the hardship of what we’re doing here is very obvious. It’s obvious to us. This is a very expensive piece of property that the existing apartment complex. There’s probably almost close to a million dollars in demolition to take that out of there and the point being is that to do this project and to do it this quality, you know we need the height of those buildings to produce the revenue that substantiates the development. As you all know when you get up on the top floor of a building, that’s the most premium unit that you have, and so the reason why our builders are interested in constructing those buildings is because of that premium, and without that I’m very afraid we don’t have a project so relative to the height hardship, I can express to you in a financial sense that it is a hardship and without it, I don’t know if we have a project. I know I don’t have a contract with my builder. I guess that would be a call for him to make. Because we made representations on what we feel is appropriate and we’re asking the Planning Commission to provide that opportunity to us. But the tree clearing is, if you look at the trees that are on the golf course, there are no trees on the golf course that are being removed. None. So the illustration of the gentleman looking at the horizon there, that’s not accurate. There’s Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 29 numerous trees, if you look at the aerial, I don’t know how many are up and down the golf course on that berm that drives up to the west of the golf course. Right here. Well…if I count, maybe about 50… Resident: That’s an overhead view. This is the actual view. Right at the fence line is. McDonald: Okay, if I could. Well I would prefer is that, at this point we haven’t really gotten into any of these issues that we’re saying anything about the trees. We have made our comments. We have said we recognize the economic value of this. I think at this point there is no objection coming from the commission about the height. If there are issues concerning the trees and those things, I would prefer that you all deal with it as private parties because some of this is in the city of Eden Prairie. Some of it is in the city of Chanhassen. How it is dealt with, because you’re the owner of both properties, I think that is something you’ve got to deal with. We are not attempting to deal with that tonight. What is before us is the PUD, and that is what we’re going to vote on. And we’re not voting on trees. Which ones come up or which ones come down because that is part of the plan. So anything that gets beyond this I think is getting out of the scope of what is before this commission and I would prefer that those be private conversations, which is where they belong at this point. So I appreciate you making comments but at this point I will close the public meeting again and we need to come back up here and I’m looking for some recommendations. Papke: Mr. Chairman, do you want one motion or four? McDonald: Why don’t we just do all four. We’ll vote on them. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves rezoning of the property located within the Lakeside development from High Density Residential District, R-12 to PUD, incorporating the development design standards contained within the staff report with a variance for the eastern perimeter setback, subject to the final plat and approval for the Lakeside development. I also make a motion that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 55. I further make a motion that we approve Site Plan for 233 housing units and a community building with a pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006 with a variance for building height for the condominium units, subject to conditions 1 through 16. And finally, I make a motion that we approve conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot, with a variance from the requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 9 as stated in the staff report. McDonald: Thank you. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the property located within the Lakeside development, from High Density Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 30 Residential District (R12) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD-R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report, with a Variance for the eastern perimeter setback, subject to the final plat approval for the Lakeside development. All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006 ,subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 2. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants and any to be relocated. 4. A minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer. All trails and retaining walls shall be modified to remain outside the wetland buffer. The plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. 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 before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 5. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet of the OHW). 6. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. 7. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. 8. The location of the building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be adjusted to respect all drainage and utility easements. 9. The applicant shall supply details about the water feature between the rear yards of the units in Block 3, specifically the source for the water in the water feature. As an alternative to the Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 31 current proposal, the applicant should consider revising the plans to utilize storm water as an amenity as part of a rain garden system in this area. 10. The applicant shall provide additional information detailing the proposed emergency overflow (EOF) route from Pond 1 to Lake Riley. 11. The grading and landscaping proposed around Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a flat, open area so maintenance equipment can access the flared end sections from Lake Riley Road East without damaging the retaining wall or the landscaping and without being below the NWL of the pond. 12. All storm water infrastructure, including catch basins, storm sewer pipes, manholes, flared- end sections, outlet structures, ponds and swales, shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer and, eventually, the homeowners association. Prior to final plat recording, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City that outlines the parameters of operation, inspection and maintenance of the storm water infrastructure. This agreement shall be transferred to the homeowners association prior to the developer relinquishing responsibility for the development. 13. The SWPPP shall be provided to the City for review by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. 14. The plans shall be revised to show that erosion control blanket will be installed over all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper. 15. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the pond shall be provided. The EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 16. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation 17. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Perimeter controls and inlet protection shall be in place and maintained as needed until 70% of the vegetation is established. 18. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. 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 Certificate of Occupancy (CO). 19. 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. Plans shall show how the temporary basin will be constructed and how water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 32 20. The proposed silt fence along Wetland Basin B shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland buffer. Silt fence shall be placed at the proposed high water level elevation of the proposed storm water pond. 21. Street gutters and catch basins are considered “surface waters” and shall be protected from exposed soils with a positive slope within 200 linear feet. Following installation of curb and gutter, silt fence shall be installed curbside along all positive slopes to the street with exposed soils. 22. Plans shall be revised to show erosion and sediment control measures for the road ditch along Lyman Boulevard. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 23. Details for concrete washout areas where drivers will wash out their trucks and how the water will be treated should be developed and included in the SWPPP. 24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $195,293. 26. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 28. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 29. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. 30. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings along the east property line to minimum bufferyard requirements. 31. No trees shall be removed behind the northwestern corner of the silt fence as shown on grading plans dated 05/19/06. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 33 32. A total of 139 trees shall be planted in the development as required for canopy coverage. 33. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading commences. 34. The lowest floor elevation of 106 Lakeview Road East must be field verified. 35. The high water level of the proposed pond must be minimum three feet lower than the lowest floor elevation of the adjacent homes along Lakeview Road East. 36. The high water level of the wetland must be determined. 37. The proposed grading in the northwest corner near the wetland needs to be adjusted so that the first floor elevation of the homes within Lot 13, Block 2 are at least one foot above the emergency overflow elevation of the wetland. 38. Pavement grades at the following locations must be adjusted so that the grade does not exceed 7%: West of Building A, and the northern street extending from the Lakeview Road East intersection. 39. Private driveway grades shall not exceed 10%. 40. Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. 41. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan. 42. High point elevations between the catch basins must be shown along the east side of Block 2. 43. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 44. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. 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. 46. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 47. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and maintained. 48. The watermain extension from Lyman Boulevard must be wet-tapped and must be done under traffic. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 34 49. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the utility extension within Lake Riley Road East. 50. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 51. The 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement on the northwest side of the property must be vacated. 52. The proposed pool house must not lie within the drainage and utility easement. 53. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 54. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Lyman Boulevard Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material, and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Lyman Boulevard Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction. 55. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant’s plans, is completed.” All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan for 233 housing units and a community building with pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, with a Variance for building height for the condominium units, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The pool, including the pool deck, shall be relocated outside the 50-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard. 3. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 35 4. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area threshold. 5. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. 7. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 8. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 9. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 10. 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. 11. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. 12. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 13. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4. 14. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 15. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 16. Approved fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 36 jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access roads shall comply with requirements of Section 503 and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. Pursuant to Section 503.1.1 2000 Minnesota Fire Code.” All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beach lot with a Variance from the requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beach lot, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. 2. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet of the OHW). 3. The area of Outlot B shall be recalculated to include only the area within the outlot above the OHW. The amount of shoreline for Outlot B shall be calculated along the OHW. The number of docks and slips permitted by the conditional use permit for the beach lot shall not exceed the number of docks and slips allowable by City Code for the actual beach lot area and frontage. 4. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. 5. The applicant shall work with staff on the design of and materials for proposed path from Lyman Boulevard to the dock to minimize the impacts of runoff from the path to the shoreline and Lake Riley. 6. The proposed walking path along the shoreline shall be made of a pervious surface such as mulch, crushed rock or turf grass and shall not be located below the OHW. Special attention shall be paid to ensure that the path materials are not prone to erosion. The plans shall be revised to show the woodland gardens above the OHW of Lake Riley. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 37 7. An individual permit shall be obtained from the DNR for any beach sand applications that do not meet the DNR standards for sand blanket applications without an individual permit. 8. One beach area shall be permitted to minimize impacts to the lake and to adjacent residents. 9. The applicant shall work with staff on the placement of the beach lot infrastructure to preserve as many of the existing trees in that area as possible. A survey of the area with the tree locations will be required and used to facilitate tree preservation. The applicant shall also work with staff on the location of the woodland path and woodland gardens along the path.” All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke: Dan, you want to clarify? Keefe: Yeah, my issue’s with the height variance on number C. McDonald: The building? Keefe: Letter C. McDonald: Oh, okay. Did you take note of that Bob? Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: ABRA AUTO BODY & GLASS: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR SHOP AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 14,430 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO A 4,074 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 60 LAKE DRIVE EAST, PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, APPLICANT ABRA AUTO BODY, PLANNING CASE 06-24. Public Present: Name Address Henry Cornelius 6322 Timber Trail, Minneapolis, 55439 Maleah Alosta Alliant Engineering, 233 Park Ave, Mpls Carol Kahnke 154 Choctaw Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Dan? Mark? Kevin? Dillon: How many outside parking spots for like cars that are like waiting to get repaired? How many, or how many on the spot, typically how many cars are there now and then how will that increase? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 38 Generous: I think the applicant would be better able to address that specific operational question. McDonald: Anything else Kevin? Dillon: Ah no. That’s the only question I have. McDonald: Debbie? Kurt? Yeah, I have no questions either. Will the applicant please come forward. Henry Cornelius: Hi. My name is Henry Cornelius. I’m with Abra Auto Body and Glass, Chanhassen and to address the specific question, it’s probably not going to change much. Actually probably will be less because we have a lot more space inside. Right now the problem we’ve got is, business has grown. The building is too small and so it’s just, it’s just natural evolution. Bigger building. And the other thing is, we’ve actually gone with less doors and so it’s a more room inside so just drive through and, or just drive everything in and park it inside. McDonald: Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Henry Cornelius: One comment I would say is, I think that the original building was built in ’91 and I don’t think it’s really been improved since then and it’s got a, for that size building it’s got an inordinate amount of blacktop if you will, and it’s pretty deteriorated all around there. I think this is really look impressive. I know we’re doing quite a bit with the landscaping and to meet all the codes, and I think it will look like a nice building. Papke: One question before, well I don’t know if this is for the applicant or city staff. With obviously you already are painting cars in your existing location but you’ll, I assume there’s a larger spray booth or something of that nature going in here. Can we comment on the additional pollutants being generated and how they’re being treated? That would be my only concern with this whole proposal is air pollution issues associated with the paint booth. Henry Cornelius: Probably since we put that booth in place about 13 years ago, I think the standards have tighten up and anything new that will go in would be, would probably be less polluting. We’re planning on putting only one booth in again. What we’re going to be doing is putting two prep stations in, which are, they’re kind of mini booths but they’re very well filtered and I mean standards just get tighter. We’re inspected on a regular basis. Abra Auto does corporately and then we get audited by people. As a matter of fact I was at a conference in February and we actually hire an outside audit agency to come in. An organization, a consulting firm to come in and we just, you know we don’t need those kind of problems and so they audit us quite extensively and anybody who comes into our location, we’ve got files and we’re checked and we check a lot. McDonald: Thanks. Okay, this is a public meeting so at this time anyone wishing to make comment, please come forward and address the commissioners. Okay, seeing no one come forward. Come on up. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 39 Carol Kahnke: My name is Carol Kahnke. I live in Chanhassen on Choctaw Circle. I guess I just wanted to ask one thing because I know one of our locations…business to have great concern with how many vehicles are outside. I think it was addressed here so. Since Mr. Cornelius is going to be enlarging his business, and that’s good…I guess I’m curious as to whether or not it kind of opens up, are you going to put a limit on the number of vehicles that will obviously be outside? I think you previously addressed that. So that would be my only concern. I don’t know how much more space there is in the building, and I’m not…screening and how much can you really screen but it sounds like he’s taken that into consideration but that was my only question. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any questions or wish to make comments? Okay, seeing no one, close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back up for the commissioners for comment. Kurt, I’ll start with you this time. Papke: I have no concerns. I think it’s a very attractive design with glass curtain wall. I think the sight lines from Highway 5 should be very nice. I think this is great. No issues. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: I’ll just make a compliment that I like the fact that they have gone well above the required amount of landscaping and this just looks wonderful so kudos to that. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dillon: My question or concern was addressed. I’m good. McDonald: Okay. Mark? Okay. I actually have no comments either. This is a well thought out plan and thank you very much for thinking of the community and making our job so easy so that we don’t have to make a lot of recommendations. It shows a little bit of fore thought. With that I will bring it back up, looking for a recommendation or a motion. Keefe: I’ll make a motion, Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06- 24 for site plan approval for a 14,430 square foot expansion to a 4,074 square foot building, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., dated 5/19/06 subject to conditions 1 through 23. And B, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for a conditional use permit for a major auto body, or auto repair and body shop subject to conditions 1 through 8. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for Site Plan approval for a 14,430 square-foot expansion to a 4,074 Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 40 square-foot building, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., dated 5/19/06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 3. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 4. The expansion must comply with Minnesota Accessibility Code (MSBC 1341 required). 5. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign proposed on the site. 6. The lighting must be shielded to prevent off-site glare. 7. The builder must comply with the following fire prevention policies: 04, 06, 07, 29, 34, 36, 40, 47, 49 and 52. 8. The applicant shall protect all existing trees to be preserved during grading and construction. Any trees damaged, removed or killed that were to be saved shall be replaced by the applicant prior to final inspection for the site. Trees with less than 60% canopy shall be replaced before landscaping financial guarantees are released. 9. Mechanical equipment must be screened. No wooded fences are permitted on the roof. 10. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average width of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland A. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install a minimum of 4 wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 11. A temporary cover of mulch and temporary seed shall be in place within 14 days of rough and or final grade for any exposed soils or if any exposed soils are not actively worked within a 14-day time period. 12. During installation of the proposed storm sewer infrastructure to the existing storm sewer, temporary caps or plugs shall be needed until the installation of the pipes and inlets are complete to prevent sediment from entering the storm sewer. 13. Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will handle the concrete wash water. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 41 14. All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is permanently protected by vegetative cover. 15. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Additional existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall also be protected. 16. The proposed silt fence along Wetland A shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland buffer. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 17. The applicant shall make certain that all construction equipment uses the entire length of the rock construction entrance and that the entrance is properly maintained to minimize soil tracking onto streets. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation (for discharge into their storm water infrastructure), Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. The developer’s engineer must submit data showing that the proposed runoff rate and volume to the existing storm sewer on the north side of the site will not exceed the existing rate and volume. 20. The developer’s engineer must verify that the existing stormwater pond southwest of the site has adequate dead and live storage for the additional impervious surface. 21. The existing service must be abandoned at the main. 22. The wet tap must occur outside the operating hours of the businesses which access the private drive. 23. The developer’s contractor must submit a written request to the City Engineer for the proposed construction time and date for the wet tap.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for a Conditional Use Permit for a major auto repair and body shop, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 42 1. The development shall comply with the site plan requirements approved as part of Planning Case #06-24. 2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas. 3. The drop-off location for damaged vehicles will be limited to the parking stalls in the southwest corner of the lot behind the evergreens. 4. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within closed building except minor maintenance including, but not limited to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. 5. No exterior public address system is permitted. 6. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. 7. Disposal of vehicle fluids shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. 8. Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: THOMAS SCHWARTZ: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-22. Don Asleson presented the staff report on this item. Papke: What’s the material of the decking around the fire pit area there? Is that gravel? Pavers? Asleson: This right here is actually, I believe it’s a paver. The applicant could correct me if I’m wrong. Papke: Okay, so it’s impervious. Okay. Asleson: They are under their impervious coverage. Papke: Right, but the actual incursion into the wetland setback is impervious. Asleson: Right. McDonald: Debbie. Kevin. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 43 Dillon: I don’t have any questions. McDonald: Mark? Dan? Keefe: Can you give us your view of how this condition created itself? I read something I think in the letters maybe attached that they talked about they weren’t aware from the developer or what’s your understanding of that? Asleson: From what I understand the applicant has said that he spoke with somebody at the City, however we weren’t able to verify any sort of documentation that the conversation existed. Obviously if we would have had the zoning permit, I think the issue would have been avoided. So I guess a brief conversation with the building department, however we weren’t able to verify any sort of conversation or documentation. McDonald: Is this something that would now have been caught by our zoning compliance? Asleson: Yes. The zoning compliance. McDonald: How entrenched is this into the property? I mean are we talking about footings being sunk for the gazebo or is this something that floats on a base? Asleson: That would be a question probably better answered by the applicant. The construction of the actual gazebo and structure, the patio and fire structure were never in our discussion so I guess I would forward that to the applicant. McDonald: Okay, and then when you had talked about the 2000 I guess survey. Is it the yellow area that all of this could be moved to, which would be more or less directed behind the house instead of off to the side? Asleson: That’s correct. That would be an acceptable area for the structures on that particular property. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. If the applicant is here, if you would come forward. Thomas Schwartz: Good evening Chair McDonald, commissioners. My name is Thomas Schwartz. I live at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. To answer that one question, the gazebo itself is on standard footings. The fire pit is free standing. It stands at maximum height 18 inches off ground on one level. Ground level at the intersection… The intersection of the base of the gazebo and here so basically ground level here. What isn’t shown as part of when we did this comprehensive landscaping plan, what isn’t shown here is just to the east of the gazebo are additional landscaping and trees that currently stand about 10 to 12 feet in height. They’re filling in very naturally creating a natural buffer from Bent Bow as far as the views to the gazebo. As far as that side of the property, we also have pine trees that are now growing and filling in that should create an additional buffer, visible buffer I should say for anything that we do as far as Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 44 landscaping. Originally when the gazebo was built and when I went to the property association initially with my request and received approval from them at that time the gazebo was built, it was under the understanding that there weren’t any restrictions. The only thing that I was aware of at the time that the gazebo was built is a 10 foot buffer to the actual, or to the, or for the wetlands. Nothing else. Unfortunately in my investigation at the time was disclosed as far as any restrictions or any barriers, I went through all of our documentation that was given to us at the time of purchase of the property and in there nothing is disclosed relative to barriers that would prohibit me from placing the gardens where they’ve been placed, or the gazebo, etc. So we became aware of the fact that this was encroaching a wetland buffer setback when Mr. Asleson contacted me in November of last year after those rains. So we’re asking for is in fact an after the fact, not knowing that I put them in a place they shouldn’t be. I hope you can appreciate and seeing the picture, that these are natural set, within a relatively distance to the pond because that would be the best place. I mean if you’re going to put something, you know on this property, you’d want it aesthetically pleasing and visible and it lends itself off of my deck directly to the gazebo, within in the landscaping plan that was created. McDonald: Okay, any questions of the applicant? Papke: Ah yes sir. At the time you constructed it, did you have a copy of this plat drawing? Thomas Schwartz: I did not. Papke: Okay. And you didn’t attempt to get a plat of your lot? Thomas Schwartz: I used what I received from, at the time it was Lundgren development. What they gave me within the packet. That also disclosed all of the restrictions if you will within the development. What you could or couldn’t do. Where you could or couldn’t do them. They list specifically by lot, by block what is allowable. My property isn’t mentioned within those documentation. With that, and with the understanding or when I bought the property that there was that 10 foot, no touch, no fuss, no muss. Don’t go near the 10 foot and I got that real loud and clear. I stayed away from it. Everything else was developed, I mean the landscaping, the gardens, you know all of it was with the aid of local landscapers. Local contractors who I entrusted would follow up anything that I found out. I personally made a call after going through the building process for the deck, I called the same individual that I had on my list of approving the deck stages. Told him I was buying a gazebo kit. Putting it in a comprehensive landscaping plan. Were there any issues and unfortunately undocumented the answer was no. Larson: Did, when you closed on this property, did you get title insurance or title packet? What do you call those? Thomas Schwartz: Yes. Larson: Typically in one of those they will have a survey or a plat drawing within that. But I guess maybe upon looking you know at the plat drawing that would be in there, what I don’t know is, I’m assuming that the, on the plat drawing you’re going to show all easements that Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 45 happen to be on the property. Including the conservation easement but I don’t know if that is shown or not so therefore. Thomas Schwartz: Unfortunately it is not, and what I can tell you is that I used, I used what I submitted to the development and then consequently used as kind of, when I went to the landscapers and went to the contractors they, you know this is what I want to do. You know it just didn’t appear on anything I received unfortunately so I went, at this time finding out blindly along thinking that I was okay putting it where it was. It’s been a heck of an education. Larson: Why don’t we put conservation easements on plat drawings? I mean truly, I mean because this could have been completely avoided if something like that had been put on there… Thomas Schwartz: And truthfully, and you know Don is probably, I hope he can support me on this. The comment, and as well as going back now to the folks who bought Lundgren Development, two things would have been obvious in my opinion at this point. One is I would have never put it where it is. It would have made no sense. With or without a permit, irregardless of how that answer came about, it would have never made sense to put where it is had anybody stood up and said can’t put it there. Okay. Secondly, and kind of off the beaten path here, I’ve actually…property with as many restrictions as that are on this piece of property, I don’t think anybody in their right mind would have ever put a house on that property. And let alone put any time or money or effort into putting in a garden. I hate to mention the dollars I have involved in putting in that garden that’s got to come out. I mean that, this thing has been a disaster, is the only way I can state it. It’s been a disaster. Larson: Yeah, well is there any consideration, I don’t know Bob if this is for you but, if he were to, if it was the pavers, would you guys consider allowing just that little piece of the gazebo? I mean it’s really, it’s not the whole gazebo. It’s like one-third of it, you know. Generous: That’s up to you. Larson: Okay. I mean truly it’s absolutely gorgeous and I just, you know when I read this my heart went out to you because I thought you know, what a bummer. Thomas Schwartz: I appreciate that. Larson: But okay, I guess that’s all I have at this point. Thomas Schwartz: And I think partly, if I can try and defend, if I can a little bit of where I believe maybe Lundgren and their sales staff came from. At the time that I bought this property, and true I believe if I understood it correctly, May of 2001 the restriction stated that it was primary resident only, and it was only after May that there was a new change to that to include all, I mean you call it impervious surfaces. And if I understand that correctly, and again I’m unable to verify it on the web site. I was unable to get anybody within city staff to say you know what, yeah you’re right. But I have a gentleman who has offered some advice and his comment was, that that’s in fact the case. Is that was only adopted after unfortunately the gazebo was actually put in place. So that may be why Lundgren never mentioned it. I can only assume that. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 46 McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: And I don’t know if this question is for you for the staff but if the structures were to remain, what, is there harm to the wetland that they’re there? I mean is the construction damage like already been done or I mean what’s the down side to leaving them there? Besides the legalities and not getting the variance… Asleson: You know as far as increase impervious surface was, which I think would be, has been covered, it doesn’t appear that the wetland vegetation has been cleared around the wetland like the applicant has stated. It appears that he has stayed back about 10 feet from what would be the wetland edge. Unfortunately you know I don’t know. I can’t really answer that with any certainty that anything has changed within the wetland because I haven’t seen it before the structures were there. McDonald: Okay. Undestad: It just looks like you had contacted the city but it was back in the building department issue again? Thomas Schwartz: Unfortunately, and unfortunately it’s not in writing. McDonald: No questions? Keefe: No questions. McDonald: I guess at this point I’ll probably hold all of my questions and comments too until the very end. Thank you for coming up. This is a public meeting so at this point I’ll open up the floor to anyone wishing to make comment or ask questions to come forward to the podium. Seeing no one come forward, we’ll close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back to the commissioners for discussion. Start with Dan. Keefe: Yeah. I empathize with the applicant. Unfortunately I think…pretty clear in this matter and I’m not, you know I think we’d end up getting into trouble if we end up giving variances, especially when it comes to wetlands. That’s all. Undestad: You know, we’ve been through these before and unfortunately the applicant went through the building department process and again, trying to find out what’s required and what’s needed and I think we’ve changed that problem by putting our zoning reviews into place at this point. It looks like he’s done a great job with landscaping back there. Preserving the wetland areas back there and the hard surface coverage, he’s not expanding that at all. He’s well within that. It looks very nice back there. The issue still remains is us as a commission, you know looking for hardships in these types of things and again, coming into these, I always get kind of torn up because I think the hardship, it looks beautiful back there. To try and tear this up, move it and it would be difficult. I’m still kind of in the middle here but again, I mean he’s done a fantastic job landscaping back there. It looks very nice. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 47 McDonald: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: You know it’s…and we shouldn’t be out…but by the same token if someone can…tell me what the real negative impact is to the wetland, or the down side, I don’t, I mean you know, if there’s sludge bubbling up from underneath the gazebo or it’s causing a problem, that’s a different story but no one can tell me that that’s the case. So there’s no clearly identified negative impact. Asleson: Can I say something? McDonald: Yes. Asleson: Okay. The only down side I would see is that you lose a net buffer area around the wetland. You know maintaining a 20 foot average buffer around the area as part of the PUD was part of that PUD’s requirement. Certain lots received smaller buffer areas. Certain lots received larger buffer areas, so as far as impacting the wetland through decreased buffer area, that would be maybe a potential impact for that. I just wanted to throw that out there because there is the buffer area and 20 foot average that would be decreased. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Larson: My take on it is, I guess maybe the only part would be the decking, if that could be moved, I would be all in favor of leaving the gazebo, just because it’s not that much. And if the deck could maybe be pushed around to one side, out of the conservation easement then I’d be more than… McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: This one’s a prime example of why we put the zoning compliance into the city code. I mean it’s just, it’s classic. Every time we get one of these, it’s just classic. In terms of the impact if this was just incurring a couple of feet into the setback, you know I’d be inclined to give a little bit here but the fact that it goes all the way into the conservation easement I think it just way too egregious of a variance here. And the fact that you have impervious pavers as well, and there’s, in cases we’ve had a couple cases, I remember one distinctly we had a couple years ago where we had an accessory structure near Lotus Lake and there was almost no place to move the shed, okay. We get these from time to time where there’s no recourse. Where in this particular case there’s a big back yard and it’s a gazebo kit. It’s a bunch of paver blocks. You get out the wheelbarrow and you move so you know it’s regrettable but I think in this particular case it’s, there are viable alternatives at play here so I would recommend that we uphold the code. McDonald: Okay, thank you. I do have one question of staff. I guess I forgot to ask you as you were going through this. You said the reason that we found this was because of a water event that came through. What happened exactly? What was the nature of that? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 48 Asleson: Well if you can recall the storm events we received in late September and October there, we had some pretty significant rainfall and there was some drainage issues in the Longacres development. And inspecting for those they took a look at some of the other storm water ponds in the Longacres development and wetlands. This one particularly. They did know that there was the emergency overflow, and they, that’s how they came across it. They were more looking to make sure the storm water system was functioning and that people weren’t threatened with wet basements. McDonald: Oh okay. Yeah, I’m always torn when these come up here. We’ve had a lot of them. You know it isn’t always a gazebo. Sometimes it was Sport Courts. There was another applicant that came before us that fixed up their back yard but unfortunately in the process of doing that they exceed the impervious surface requirement. The harm done is that again we set these buffers up and since you start to encroach into them, that’s the harm in and of itself. Is that we set a limit and we’ve gone through this a number of times as to how much that should be and we’ve kind of reached the conclusion as to how much of a setback is required for the buffers for wetlands. I always hate to sit here and try to tell you that well, you’ve just got to take it apart and move it but, you’re in a little bit better position than some people who come in here and we make them tear up a slab of concrete or you know a very permanent structure that’s encroaching into an area where it shouldn’t be, but again the only way that according to the zoning that we could grant anything is to showing of a hardship and I just don’t see it here so I guess, I also would have to very reluctantly vote against the variance. Undestad: One quick question. On the gazebo, like the wetland setback area, you had shown on the other drawing what moving this stuff up on this side of the house. If it just comes inside of that wetland setback? Asleson: Yeah. Undestad: So you were showing it as an alternate to keep it up in the yellow. Asleson: The wetland buffer setback line actually runs like this, and so the blue area is the 40 feet from the wetland buffer line. The wetland buffer has iron monuments in the ground to delineate where that’s. Undestad: So it’s got to get all the way out of that blue area. Larson: Oh… McDonald: Did you have anything else you wanted to say? Thomas Schwartz: I guess just in kind of respect to a comment that was made, it’s just a gazebo. It’s easy to tear it down and move it and you know it’s not a big deal. It is a big deal. If I were to tear it down, I already have $5,000 into this thing. I’ve got another $3,500 in having this property surveyed, just to stand before you today. Okay. If I were to move it, tearing it down is simple. Pulling out the qualified pilings, disrupting the landscaping, rebuilding the landscaping and rebuilding the gazebo, minimum is $21,000. Irregardless of my ability to pay that or not, Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 49 that’s a hardship on anybody. I mean we’re talking potentially $40,000 to $50,000 of cash just to move it. By the time I’m all said and done, including permits. Now I’m willing, and I’ve already disrupted a garden that was associated to this, okay to put in a better overland, overflow swale because we were told that those raised beds that were in that garden jeopardized that. With the engineers that came out and did the survey, they’ve confirmed that swale works. Without disrupting the garden. But we’re willing to do what we have to as a compromise in hopes that with the significant costs that I may have to incur, with the fact that it is part of a very extensive landscaping project, and the fact that we’re willing to do what we have to on that overland, overflow swale to make it, I mean we want to cooperate. But we’re hoping that you know there’s somewhere in the middle here that we can be met. One of the comments that does it create a hardship on the wetlands? Has it or will it in the future? Mr. Asleson has even stated so directly to me that if it had caused any damage, that damage would have been caused already. There will be no future ill effect by leaving the gazebo where it is. So I’m hoping with…truly a financial hardship here, and in addition to that if in fact the city code had been changed interim to this being built, I would not have been aware that that code existed as it is relative to the gazebo. So I ask that to be considered as part of your decision. McDonald: Well first of all I’d like to address your comment about it’s only a gazebo. None of us up here think it’s only a gazebo. We may have said that as an illustration, and again what we’re trying to get across is you’re not the only resident of this city that has come before us and has suffered a financial hardship. I feel for you and I understand that and the finances are a hardship. Unfortunately the way the code is written, and we have to look for a hardship, financial hardship is not one of the criteria that we’re allowed to judge by. My suggestion to you is that once we have taken our vote, if this does go before the city commission, and between now and then you have an opportunity to talk with staff and if you can convince them as far as a compromise, things could change once you get up to the commission meeting. You still have an opportunity to try to reach an agreement, but again that’s why our only role is to look at what the ordinances and the subdivision rules allow us to look at. We are not allowed to change them and the problem is is that with these setbacks, you are so deep into them, we just can’t grant that type of a variance because of the impact it has on the rest of the city. It’s not just you. It’s the rest of the city, and that’s why the ordinances were put together the way they were and we have to judge everything based upon that. So I do feel your pain and everything and I do understand that it is a financial hardship, but again we can’t use that criteria as part of our evaluation up here. And I do apologize for that. We as a commission did recognize this as being a problem and did ask city staff to do something so that homeowners have some way of knowing beforehand that they’re encroaching upon something. And I’m just hoping that in the future we can save someone else from going through all this misery but again, I’m afraid that the way the ordinances are written, our only role is to judge things based upon that. With that, I’d like to get a motion. Actually did we discuss this yet? Yes we did. Papke: Yeah, we all had comments. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report, and conditions 1 through 3. In addition I make a motion that we order the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 50 setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant’s hardship is self created in nature. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. In addition, the Planning Commission orders the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. All voted in favor, except Larson and Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. McDonald: And again, what I would encourage the applicant to do is that between now and the City Council meeting, offer city staff some of the plans that you brought up. If those would be acceptable, I’m sure that they will propose that to City Council when you plead your case before them. They have the power to actually make adjustments to the city code. Thank you. Thomas Schwartz: Thank you for your time. PUBLIC HEARING: GARY CARLSON: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3891 WEST 62ND STREET, PLANNING CASE 06-23. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 51 Papke: This is obviously, as you stated, the second time we’ve seen this one and you’re still recommending denial. Can you give us a little bit of context as to how this came before us again tonight. Metzer: Originally the intention was to take this request with the compromise of taking the two additional structures up to City Council, but the deadline for appeal to the recommendation of denial was missed. And so by law we have to take it back through the process over again. Larson: Just in the findings you have does not cause undue hardship to, or to take down, I’m tired. The garages that they want to take down, but I’m thinking you know wasn’t this one where they need the van to get in there for their daughter? Metzer: Right. Larson: And to me that’s kind of a hardship. If that van can’t access to get in there and so. Metzer: But it was a garage that was built without a permit. Larson: Bad people, no permit. Alright, okay. Thanks. McDonald: Kevin? Dillon: No questions right now. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah a couple. …coming back as a trade off then to eliminate two more structures? Metzer: Say it again. Undestad: This is coming back now, the difference in this plan… Metzer: Right. Undestad: They’re trying to do a trade off. Two more structures… Metzer: …structures that were built without permits…where the last time it was here where the three in question, they’re still in question. The only difference is, he is agreeing to remove these. I think it was more for a convenience on one of these. Undestad: Now he’s agreed to take the two small ones out. Metzer: Right. And that’s these that are pictured here on the top. Larson: So B and C would be gone? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 52 Metzer: No. Well B and C are still up for applying for the variance for the intensification of the non-conforming square footage of accessory structure. Larson: Okay. Metzer: Bu the applicant is proposing, in agreeance with being granted the two variances to the setback and the three structures, intensifying the square footage, he would remove these as well as these other 5…agreement. Larson: Okay. Keefe: Josh, I have a question for you. Are the building that he’s talking about removing, are they in use? Are they, I mean are they. Metzer: To my knowledge they are. Maybe the applicant could shed a little more light on that but. Keefe: And in terms of their physical repair, are they useable from that standpoint? Metzer: Well I mean from what I know, they’re quite old. As far as their structural soundness, I really have no idea. Keefe: Okay. Yeah, I’m just I’m kind of scratching my head on, I mean they’ll build a new building and then I’ll see if I can trade by tearing down some buildings that are older and get, so when do the buildings come down? You know I guess only when he gets an agreement is when they come down or? Metzer: I mean part of the, if you were to grant a variance, part of the, one of the conditions is that those two buildings are removed. Keefe: Alright. McDonald: Kevin. Or did you already pass? Larson; I’ve got actually one more. McDonald: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: So like if they had gotten a permit to do Building A, B and C, would A have not been allowed? Metzer: None of them would have been allowed. Larson: None of them. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 53 Metzer: No. Because city code states that this zoning district, RSF, maximum detached accessory structure is 1,000 square feet. They already exceed that before these three buildings were built. McDonald: I have no questions of staff. Is the applicant present? Luke Melchert: Yes, your honor, or Mr. Chairman the applicant is present. My name is Luke Melchert. I’m going to talk on behalf of the applicant and he will talk also in a minute. It seems to me that I hope you would look at this the same way that we look at it, and seems to me that it’s a case where, we’ve got the round pegs of the ordinance that are being trying to be pounded into the square piece of property, and it just doesn’t always fit sometimes. This is an RSF zoning, which allows only 1,000 square feet of accessory structures. The RSF zoning allows for anywhere from 1.4 to 4 units per acre. This is 3.85 acres. So if, assuming that the property could be developed to a maximum density allowed in the ordinance, there could be 15 single family homes here, plus 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings. And we’re looking at only 5,000 square feet. So if we would like to think that you would agree with what I think the neighbors agree are looking for is that, to allow some semblance of an existing lifestyle that’s been in existence for 100 years out here. It’s always been some type of a hobby farm. I suspect that 98 to 99 percent of the people in Chanhassen have no idea where 3891 62nd Street is. Have never been past it and really don’t care what goes on here. The only people that really care are the neighbors and they’ve all agreed that they would prefer this type of activity be on the property as opposed to Mr. Carlson selling it to his greedy lawyer and he go out and developing it to the maximum of it’s potential where you can have 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings on there. There’s no question it violates the letter of the law, but I don’t think it’s violates the spirit of the law. And if you look at, let me get these other pictures up here first. Sticking more to the 30 foot setback requirement. If you look at the picture down here in the left hand corner, right here is where the 22 setback requirement is. It’s the least. The 30 foot setback is required. There’s only 22 feet from the building, corner of the building here to the right-of-way. The corner of the building is 59 feet from the driven surface of the roadway. And the building sits behind a 3 foot earthen berm and a stand of trees that existed for years. I would think that if this building had not been built and were coming in for the variance now, given the fact of the disabled child where a large tree, if you look at this picture, sits only 12 feet from the garage. You see some of these pictures of where vehicles try to get between the garage and the tree. And now you’re looking at an emergency vehicle, a fire truck is going to be very difficult. It seems to me that’s a, if not an existing hardship, certainly a potential hardship. If you take everything into consideration, this plus the fact that it costs over $17,000 for him just to remove it, it seems to us that the perceived evil from this 22 foot setback is insignificant in comparison to what could be potentially go wrong there. And the cost of removing the building. It would seem to me that if we had requested that variance now, it would be not unreasonable to grant it now because there is existing structures along the highway and Josh, is the hockey rink not in violation of this setback? According to… Metzer: It’s within the front yard setback but it’s you know, it’s a hockey rink. You know it could almost function as a fence rather than a garage. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 54 Luke Melchert: But I would think if I’m building a private hockey rink, that you’re going to look at that as fence. You’re going to look at it as a structure. So it seems to me that the evil perceived here is not very great in comparison to what the potential hardship would be. And it should not be forgotten either that this condition’s existed for over 10 years. And so it seems to me if there is such an evil, it should have been stopped before you know, so again, I would like to think that again it’s the letter of the law’s been violated, we don’t think the spirit of the law’s been violated. And as far as the square footage, there’s an existing agreement, written agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the Carlson family that allows over 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. The other stuff is this garage which we think is necessary for the child. It’s necessary for, you know it’s not unreasonable where the building is situated. And again we think you know the letter of law has been violated but the spirit of the law certainly hasn’t been violated, and I think as the neighbors are requesting, that they would rather see this type of activity on the property as opposed to what could be on the property. Thank you. McDonald: Any, well before you sit down, does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Luke Melchert: I am not the applicant. I’m speaking. McDonald: But you’re speaking for the applicant so you just became the applicant. Luke Melchert: Okay. Larson: I’ve got one. You just mentioned a letter from Chan allowing 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. Luke Melchert: There’s an existing agreement between the City of Chanhassen when Mr. Carlson was putting in his pole barn and the removing of these other five buildings. It’s kind of a comparable removal of and then, so under that written agreement, that building plus the other structures exceed the 3,000 square feet. Larson: Right. Luke Melchert: And so all we’re asking for is the difference between 3,000 and 5,000 on 3.9 acres. Again, yes it violates the letter of the law. There’s no question about it, 3,000 or 5,000 but you all have to remember that you are treating this property exactly the same way you are treating a what, three-quarter, 1,500 or 5,000 square foot on 15,000 square foot lot. And this is 3.8 acres. Almost 4 acres. And again the only people who really see this property are the neighbors and they all would prefer it to remain as it is, and Mr. Carlson continue the activity there. McDonald: Kevin, do you have any questions? Dillon: Are there any neighbors here that will attest to that? Luke Melchert: We have some written document. Mr. Carlson, do you have those letters? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 55 Metzer: They should have been in the report. Keefe: Let me just ask, why weren’t the buildings permitted? Luke Melchert: I have no idea. They were not. There’s no question they weren’t but again, that garage has been there for 10 years. And so I don’t even remember some of the things I’ve done 9 months ago. Keefe: So it’s been in the family for a hundred years and you put up some buildings? Okay. Luke Melchert: And now the types of uses have changed. You know it’s always been a hobby farm. He’s had an apple orchard there and now he’s doing horses. McDonald: I have a question for staff first of all. You said a couple of things about the 3,300 square foot, the agreement between the city. If my memory serves me correctly, part of that was a compromise because isn’t this a non-conforming use? Metzer: Right, they have an existing accessory structures are out there are like 3,000 something. Of you know legally built, long before our current ordinance existed. What they wanted to do, they have a dilapidated barn where the horses were staying which they needed to improve so they brought in a pole barn and in exchange removed an equal amount of existing structures. McDonald: And so we actually. Metzer: Consolidated from 5 into 1. McDonald: Consolidated 5 buildings down to 1 which made it simpler as far as the building, that was part of the compromise. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. You say that if we were to look at this as being divided up into 15 single family units, there’d be 15,000 square feet of additional structure space that would be allowed if these were individual lots. Isn’t that a little apples and oranges? Luke Melchert: …factual? I mean under the ordinance it can be subdivided into 1.4 to 4 units per acre. And now I’m just assuming that whoever bought it would seek to subdivide and develop it to it’s maximum potential. McDonald: But wouldn’t those be individual units? Luke Melchert: Right, but it’s on the same 3.87 acres, there’d be 15,000 square feet of accessory structures. McDonald: But at that point you’re looking at 15 individual pieces of land versus one piece of land. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 56 Luke Melchert: Absolutely. But it’s 15 that are maybe quarter acre area of lots as opposed to one 3.85 acres. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions, unless someone else does. Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public meeting and what I would invite is anyone that wishes to come forward and speak, please do so. Gary Carlson: Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street. I’d like to say a few words on my behalf. I have one additional letter from the neighbor. Well just quickly, the letters from the only neighbors involved with this property, because the rest of thousands of feet away, are the two that are already in the statement. They’re very short. Dale and Linda Keehl who live directly east of the Carlson property have no concerns or problems with the placement of their out buildings or the number of them. That’s my neighbors directly to my east. We visit, you know…all the time. The next neighbor is directly east to my property, Terry Toll. Next to the Carlson’s on the east side. I have no problems with their buildings. Exclamation point. And they would gladly come here tonight. And then this new letter, we are Sue and Steve Bradley. We live in the first home directly to the west of the Carlson property. We find the position of agricultural buildings on their premises benefits the surrounding neighborhood. We believe it increases the safety of the citizens of the area and the livestock on the property. Neighbors, including ourselves, enjoy their rural influence on our children and the agricultural nature of the property provides endless entertainment and education. Protecting the legacy of rural life in Chanhassen should be considered for the healthy and happy development for future generations in and around Chanhassen. We all need to do more to support this type of diversity in our neighborhoods and help promote a connection to the land. This is from Sue and Steve Bradley. Our neighbors to the west. Big picture is here. I don’t have RSF zoning, and I never will and we can never get our zoning to match my home. If I do redevelop, which I have developed 21 lots in our city. Very beautiful lots. All with no variances, I’ll bring in a development that you’ll be pleased to approve. Which if I keep my hobby farm for 20 to 30 years, I can very easily see a light rail train station on my site because everything else is getting burned up with homes because I have the full light rail goes right by my property and there’s enough place for a trail station there because there’s no other property, so I’m thinking way out in the future but getting back to what’s at hand. The big picture is I have an agricultural farm. The City is doing the best they can to get me into the RSF, and if you read carefully their whole program is, their whole packet it’s very well put together. Very well worded and they worked hard on it now the second time because I didn’t know I had to sign a paper for appeal within 4 days. I didn’t get it signed in 4 days, and during the interim it’s given me a chance to work out some more changes in the older buildings. It’s giving me a chance to hire some, advice of to guide me. It’s not a person that would be strange to these type of city operations. He’s, I really appreciate him being on the end and guiding me through this, Mr. Luke Melchert. He’s the city attorney from the City of Chaska and they’re such small variances. The City has already you know gone with let a pole barn come onto an RSF-1 that’s over the 1,000 square foot. The City has already varianced me for adding an apartment to my house in RSF-1. Both of these were non, it’s a non-conforming home. It’s already gone over and said well we’re not even going to allow, trying to improve. The City has already allowed me two different occasions to change and non-conform. And if we can’t get some positive reaction, get you folks to understand what we’re doing here, we just need Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 57 these minor variances to keep it in line with the city’s zoning. It’s not a precedent. There’s no other home like this. No large property like this. Not going to change things in the rest of the residents. It doesn’t affect anyone really or otherwise. I guess I just want to get these pictures shown briefly. This is the old barn that’s coming down. Can we blow that up? Little bit. Yeah, that’s good and I’ll just move the picture up. This is the old barn that’s coming down. And this is already in. This is the pole barn that’s replacing it. Now do you see encroachment of too many structures on this property? We’ve got space everywhere and there’s room all around it. There’s not too much surface structure area. The next picture over is the machine shed that was put in 13 years ago and that’s where all the equipment for the horses are kept. This little building there to the right of it is coming down, and of course you can see the pole barn again. It’s already in place. It’s already been set and we’re starting to move things into it so I can take down the old barn. And not a big problem with, I mean it’s not a big, it’s not building to everyone…you read the report it says I have 13 out structures. I do. We’re taking down 7 of them. Let’s look at this next picture quickly. I think we have time on that. This is the machine, you know this is the, you can see the horse. This is their, when they’re in that part of the pasture this is, as the horse inspector said, you need something better than the barn and I put this in 4 years ago. You can see the size of the pick-up besides this. Not a very big building. 22 by 20. This is another picture of it down the side of it, and out into the rest of my property. All the way to those trees is my property. Now I think it looks big because I’m standing right beside it. Nice structure. That’s 4 years old. That’s a new structure. And we move over again and there’s that machine, machinery storage. And there’s that little old shed that’s coming down. And I’ve got to show my wife out in the garden there working. That kind of shows, you know I have to improve my buildings and the city is recognizing that. They’re glad to see these old buildings go, and yes I’ve had some without permit. I thought I was ag use. I am ag use. The city has mentioned in here I’m an ag use. You can drive by any time you want and they’ve got 13, 9, 7 out buildings. They’ve got silos. I mean I didn’t know you’ve got to take a permit for every, as they changed uses of that…farmer and the next thing you know you’re in dairy or, I don’t know what that zoning permit is required but I’m no different. I’ve had to improve these utility buildings and I’m taking down 7 of them. Just to cover a little bit, I guess you went over all the setback and how we showed on these pictures the uses up there. The only thing I want to cover is that the Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22 foot front yard setback, which was 8 foot. I mean there’s a plan in here that shows how far the road is actually from my property because the road doesn’t come anywhere near the property line. You’ve got the railroad right-of-way. You’ve got a corner right-of-way and you’ve got 3 streets coming together so there’s a lot of right-of-way. There’s a lot of space between me and any traffic. I just want to state what we’re here for and if we can’t have a positive outcome of course I will get everything signed and get it appealed to the council in time this time. Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22 foot setback, and just what the staff has said on the approval. With the following conditions. The building permits have been submitted for almost a year now. Since last August. So the whole prints, all the drawings of these new buildings are all there waiting at the building department. When you approve this, we’re just talking about the variance tonight. You approve the variance, the building department then kicks in and they’re not going to issue building permits. They’re going to write them and they’re going to be called printed, but not issued because it was an after the fact building permit. They’ll print them but they won’t issue them until they look at the building. Make sure it meets all the codes and setbacks, whatever. So when you say well we gave them the variance and then he gets the building permits. No. That’s Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 58 a whole separate process. I’ve submitted that. If those buildings have anything that’s not approved, they’ll be coming down. And not based on your variance. These are based on the fact that they’re not, they don’t meet building codes. Luke Melchert: I just wanted to, if I may, just one last comment here. Staff has written that you do have a great deal of latitude in determining variances and it seems to me there is enough here that this property is so unique and if you do grant these variances you’re not going to be setting a precedent for any other variances… Gary Carlson: Thanks. You guys do a great job. We love being in Chanhassen. We love the fact that you have a city center. I see Victoria has really improved their’s I think because Chanhassen was such a great city. And thank you for being here. I know it’s a job sometimes but thanks for being here. McDonald: Thank you Mr. Carlson. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment and ask questions? Okay seeing no one come forward, I’ll close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back up to the commissioners. Dan, I’ll let you go first. Keefe: I guess I’m just, you know I’m torn by the garage was built without a permit and not only was it built without a permit, it’s built not at the setback. I’m just kind of troubled by that. I think that does, despite what they say about you know we just can’t have that. I mean you’ve got to get permits and adhere to the setbacks. I mean we have granted him some other things, you know. But on this one I’m just troubled by them. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah, it does sound like the City has given, met on some of these issues and helped out along the way here. You know and again, I mean they’re building structures without permits, and we all know you can’t be doing that. This is what happens here. The comment was made as far as you know, the letter of the law versus the spirit here and I think as a commission again we kind of have, we’re kind of back in that path of the letter of the law is what we kind of have to look at here so. I think that’s what we’ve got to base it on. McDonald: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I’d like to add I’m a little bit troubled by the lack of attention to detail to process and missing the last chance for appeal and doing the buildings without getting not only the right approvals beforehand. There seems to be just a little bit of a pattern of not really caring and so that troubles me a little bit. As well as just like you know, the aesthetic nature of what we’re approving is not what I would like to see. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: What I’m wondering is if this were in agricultural versus residential property, would we be running into the same problems. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 59 Metzer: No. Larson: So would it make sense to try and change the zoning on that property because it’s. Metzer: No. It’s land use designation is for low density residential… Larson: So there’s no way to change that? Okay. That’s all I have. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: Yeah I think Deb touched on the zoning issue. I mean if we’re guiding this for 2020 low density residential, that’s very different than if it was being guided for ag or rural residential in that timeframe so I think it’s clear what the city’s intentions are. The property to the south is being developed. When I drove by last weekend, I noticed just on the other side of the light rail trail there’s a new development of four big homes going in there, so that area is developing. It is becoming more residential, and I think we have to be sensitive to the surroundings. Also as you come south on the roadway there, that impinges on the garage, the picture shows the big signs directing people to you know turn left here. I don’t think the picture does justice to it. I mean they’re pretty obvious. They’re pretty blatant. It’s pretty clear that the traffic engineers were justifiably concerned that somebody doesn’t miss that corner, so I think this you know, if the setback was in an area where it didn’t make any difference, you know I think there might be some reason for latitude but in this particular case it seems pretty obvious that the traffic engineers had cause for concern, and being that safety should always be upper most in our minds, I think we have to take that into consideration too so, that’s it. McDonald: As I said before, these are always the toughest ones to I think deal with because you hate to tell someone what he can and cannot do on his property. To say that it doesn’t set a precedent is dead wrong, and I think everyone knows that. The man that was in here before us suffering $47,000-$50,000 worth of effort. I don’t see where his problem is any different from this, and I see us, we’re bound by the same rules. I just don’t see where we have the latitude that everyone believes that we do. And if we can grant variances under certain conditions, we’ve been through this before. We found that the conditions to grant a variance have not been met. I don’t see where anything has really changed. It’s just at this point you will have the opportunity to go before City Council. Plead your case at that point, and you know if they wish to redo something considering the zoning or something along those lines, they have that power within the city charter to do all that. And as I said before, I don’t like doing these and I’m sorry when they always come before us but we did swear and oath to enforce the laws of the city. I see where we have no choice here either. Luke Melchert: May I respond to a couple of things that were brought up? McDonald: Well I’ve been bitten pretty bad tonight by letting people respond after we have made comments. I would suggest at this point to save the comments for City Council. Again as I’ve explained, we are very limited as to what we can do and I don’t think there’s anything you can tell us so what I would do is ask for a motion from the council. Or actually from the commission, I’m sorry… Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 60 Larson: I’ll give it a shot. Planning Commission, staff. Okay is this what I’m supposed to read? Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached access structure restriction in a single family residential district at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove three storage buildings. That’s it? Okay. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: What I need to tell the applicant is that you have the ability to appeal. Please don’t forget this time…and good luck. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 61 Public Present: Name Address Sig & Don Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive Pat & Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road Bruce Johansson 6701 Mohawk Drive Jim Boeshans 6651 Pawnee Drive Mike Henderson 6701 Mohawk Drive Shelly Berg 6701 Mohawk Drive Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Before you go on there, I’ve got a question. If you’re saying that he was renting, what’s the City’s position on that? If this is rental property with apartments within it, what’s the code? Is he supposed to have a license? Generous: He would need a rental license. McDonald: And at this point he does not have one. Metzer: Correct. McDonald: And I take it that is in dispute between the City and the applicant as to whether or not he was renting. Metzer: Correct. Staff is however recommending approval of the request. We feel that by recommending approval of this variance we’ll be able to better enforce ordinances on the property. And so we have some conditions of approval attached in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Can you explain how granting a variance will help to be able to enforce? Metzer: It’s mainly the condition that they’d be required to get a rental license. Kind of allow us to restrict parking in the area. Things like that. Keefe: And so, you can’t do that without getting the variance? Metzer: From what we’ve been told, no. It was just. Keefe: It was just conditions of approval, conditions of approval for reconstruction? For expansion. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 62 Metzer: Of the second level. Keefe: Would incorporate certain conditions which would restrict the use of the building. Metzer: Right, and would not allow the kitchen on the second level. Restrict it to two kitchens with the home. Keefe: And the City cannot control the uses in the building without? Metzer: Without that condition of approval, right. Keefe: Okay. Dillon: What’s the status of the building today? Metzer: They have received a permit to rebuild what they had, without the proposed addition. So they’re in the process of re-building the roof right now. Dillon: Is it inhabited? Metzer: I don’t believe so. It shouldn’t be. McDonald: Debbie. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I’ve got a couple. On page 3 of the staff report, you mentioned that in the building permit history here there were two building permits issued and that they were issued in error. Could you shed some light on that? What was? Metzer: It was basically, there must have been confusion on the setback to the north, that paper street. Requires a 30 foot setback. My only guess is that, whichever staff members approved the permits were under the impression that it was a 10 foot setback to that. Papke: Okay. The other question was, we’re attaching a couple conditions here and I just want to make sure I’m clear how they line up with city code. So the hard surface coverage is clear. Four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. Where does that, is this part of city code for rental property? For single family residential. Where does that, how does that line up with city code. Metzer: It was my understanding that you know it’s the intention but not to allow the property to become you know a humongous rental property. And it was thought that by limiting the number of vehicles you park in the driveway. Papke: Is there a limit for residential single family? Metzer: There’s not. Papke: Okay. And how about, the same question about the two licensed dogs. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 63 Metzer: It’s just to make sure that. Papke: Is there a restriction for residential single family for how many dogs you can have without a kennel permit? Metzer: Yes. Papke: What is it? Generous: If you have more than 2. Papke: More than 2, okay. So this one is basically in keeping with city code whereas the number of parked cars there we’re actually restricting the applicant to something tighter than existing city code for residential single family. With sort of the tacit assumption that it’s rental property and okay. Got it. McDonald: I have a question for you. Okay, this is a non-conforming use and to approve this we’re going to intensify a non-conforming use. And the reason we want to do that is that we’re able to put some restrictions on his use. Papke: Correct. McDonald: Whereas if we denied this and said that what he’s allowed to do by law is to replace what was currently there, then he doesn’t get the second story addition. And then we’re back to okay, no rental license but can’t city code enforce that if he is renting without a license? Metzer: Well part of it was the. McDonald: You’ll get your opportunity sir. We’re just asking questions. Metzer: Part of it was the sheriff’s report that was taken when the home was burnt down. Tenants…stating that they were renting. Sheriff’s report said that there was at least three family units living there. McDonald: Three kitchens, that would make sense. Metzer: So, and as we were going with, by doing this we can disallow a third kitchen. We can restrict parking space, or number of parked vehicles. Which in turn would I believe restrict number of renters. Papke: How are we normally, kind of a follow up question. How would we, if in normal circumstance we found that someone was renting out, you know most of their house to, as rental units. How would we normally get compliance for a rental license? How would we normally enforce that under those circumstances? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 64 Metzer: I’m not totally familiar with it. Generous: It’s through the building department. They have a rental license inspection requirement and licensing requirement, so they would go in and determine that the units complied with all building and safety code. Papke: And how would we determine that indeed this was a rental property? Generous: Through investigation. Either the applicant admits that they’re renting the property or the tenant admits that they’re renting the property. Or you know we see an advertisement in the paper, things like that. If someone can say no, I don’t. These are my roommates and, then the issue becomes how do you disprove that because the burden of proof is on the city. Papke: Okay. Larson: Is it, the gentleman that was here before when they had the rental for the care keeper for his daughter. I somehow remember there was something that there is a restriction on how many people can rent in a certain. Metzer: That was for use of a single family home as a two family home. Larson: Okay. So this is a completely different? Generous: Right. Larson: It’s a single family home rented by several family units… Metzer: Rent is allowed as long as a rental license is you know in place and is applied for. Larson: Okay. So there’s no restriction on the amount of family units that can be within a single building? Generous: Theoretically. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Okay, I guess the problem I’m having with all of this is that, we’ve got a non- conforming use. We just had a non-conforming use case. We turned that down because of the way the code and everything is written. Now you’re coming before us, you’re asking us to approve something that we just turned down and I’m at a loss to see what the advantage is because again, you know we just went through all this with Mr. Carlson about what he’s offering to do and the compromises, back and forth. I don’t see yet why I should do this. I haven’t heard anything actually from staff that would convince me, and that’s what I’m looking for. Why are you in favor of this? Metzer: It’s like we said, the requirement of the rental license. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 65 McDonald: Okay but again you have city code to do that. You can enforce that. I understand the problem of yes, the burden of proof is upon the city but I mean at some point it would seem pretty easy to prove that if you have so many people going in and out, they all can’t be living there for free. I’m just, I’m at a loss. You’ve got to help me here to show where we’re really getting an advantage here. Dillon: Yeah, if you take the rental thing off the table, would you say to approve this? Given your recommendation on the previous two variances. Metzer: Just allowing the kitchen on the third level and restrict the number of parking spaces. The number of parked vehicles outside. And that was part of the reason that the driveway became so large we believe is to allow for parking spaces. Larson: So you’d allow two kitchens, but not three? Metzer: Right. McDonald: Well if he rebuilds though, does he get to go back to three kitchens and the wide driveway? I mean if we don’t approve this. He is allowed to rebuild the non-conforming because of the fire. Does he get the three kitchens back and the driveway if we were to disallow this? Metzer: Well he doesn’t get the driveway, no. I mean he doesn’t get the 25%. He has to reduce 25%. Part of that was the reason the driveway became so big we believe is because of the parking spaces. They need parking spaces. McDonald: Okay, and again the third kitchen was built without permits, so wouldn’t he have to get permits to build a kitchen if he wanted to, even if it’s non-conforming, it was there before, it was there illegally. Metzer: Right. Generous: It depends. McDonald: Okay, so he would still be limited to two kitchens. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. I’m having trouble seeing where if we disallow it, we’re gaining anything but, are you the applicant sir? Loren Veltkamp: Yes I am. McDonald: Why don’t you come forward and you can, I’ll give you your turn and then we’ll ask you questions. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 66 Loren Veltkamp: I can clarify a lot of this very quickly. These issues came up about 5 years ago when I started to work on this house and we did spend a lot of time. Oh, my name is Loren Veltkamp. 6724 Lotus Trail. I’ve lived there for about 15 years and during the time I’ve added a lot to the house. And I did this all without a variance and after my divorce I was deemed handicapped by the court and I was not able to make a regular living due to certain problems. But anyway I resorted to renting my home out and we got into this with the city over a long period of time and it, this was before Josh was hired by the City, and we went through it with a number of people and it went all the way up to the city attorney and I eventually got a letter from the city attorney saying that I did not have rental units. And this is what I said from the beginning, you know I have a single family home. It’s a very nice home, and I don’t want rental units. I don’t want to have apartments or a triplex or a duplex or anything like that. I’ve never set out to do this, and the problem we got into was that the code defining what an apartment is, is a little vague. You know it says if you have 5 particular amenities, like cooking. A place to eat, sleeping, a bathroom and a living space, those 5 things, then you have an apartment. Okay, but it also says you have to have a separate unit, okay, and that’s where it was determined that I did not have apartments because they were not separate okay, and that there was no door between them. There was certainly no locking door, so it never became a definable, rentable space. And it’s confusing, I was very confused about this for a long time, and I ended up writing an 8 page letter to City Council about this, which I believe they still have and you can look at it. I call these, instead of a rental unit, I called it a mila which stood for mother-in-law apartment. And that’s what I thought I was building was just mother-in-law apartments that extended families could use in the future, and roommates can use today. And so that’s what I set out to build and the kitchen for example, I did get, I didn’t exactly get a permit to build a kitchen but I included the kitchen on my plan and because I put a bathroom up there, the kitchen was included under the plumbing permit. And the kitchen was thoroughly inspected and approved and my house was visited 5 times on 5 separate occasions by city inspectors. Five different times now they went through my house from top to bottom to determine that there were not apartments in this building. And that’s exactly what I wanted from the beginning. I don’t want apartments, but I needed to have people live with me in order to afford the house because I just, there’s just no way I can stay there. So I think maybe they cut me some slack you know because of the handicap thing. I’m thinking that’s what they might have done. And I did have trouble you know when I built the house writing in the plans you know, I changed the plans as I went. They started off just building a garage and then I got up on top of the garage and I said this is really nice living space so I built a room up there. And then I extended it into the house and then I put in a bathroom and it was all done kind of piecemeal, and I changed the windows three times and I did this over a number of years, which is why the records and I submitted hand drawings on some of the stuff and I believe some of it was lost. You know some of it was just misplaced, but in the end everything I did was you know rigorously inspected and I had all the paperwork for that. I pulled all the necessary permits and even the city attorney spent a great deal of time looking into this. And it is a complicated issue. You know the difference between an apartment and having roommates, and especially when you have the five amenities but you don’t have significant separation of the units. So I was totally confused about it, and I don’t blame other people for being confused about it too. But I didn’t do anything without a permit, and I didn’t do anything without a permit and you know the work is not all perfect and all that stuff. I did a lot of it myself but I was thoroughly inspected and we had this all set. I did have roommates in my Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 67 house and you know we went on this way for 5 years you know and it’s been fine. And I’d like to continue it just the way it was. With a couple little alterations but I think that the city after some time made the right decision you know. And everything I think has been pretty good, and I would just like to continue it. This variance request is not really born out of hardship. You know what actually happened here is that the roof burned off and I had some builders come over and say you know, what do I do you know, and they said why are you building out over the garage when you should be building out over your house, you know. Because then you can stack the bathrooms and you can put the storage over the garage and everything is much cleaner and neater and you know more economical. So for purely practical reasons I said well, maybe I should apply for this variance you know. I’m not going to get another chance to do it so. This is probably the right thing to do for a house. I’ll give it a shot. And in terms of hardship, you know I’m not going to exaggerate hardship here. There’s a certain amount of hardship in having a poorly designed house and paying more utilities because things are spread out more and this kind of thing, and I suppose over the life of the house that probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars. There is some hardship here with having a poorly designed house, that kind of thing but it’s nothing that we can’t understand. It’s pretty clear. So there is some hardship here and there is some opportunity here and I basically just want to build the house a little differently. I don’t want to add square feet or anything like that. I don’t want to add anything to bother anybody here. By just cleaning up the design of the house a little bit, and make it a little more livable and get things where they belong and put in a different heat system and things like that, then you know I’m good to go. McDonald: Okay. Any questions? Kurt? Keefe: I’ve got a question in regards to, you know locating the kitchen on the second level, if you were to grant this variance, you’re okay with that? Loren Veltkamp: Actually I can’t survive in the house with that because the roommates that I had used the kitchen, and I used it too. The kitchens were a common area as the City determined. When you have roommates the City, you know they…hard and fast ordinance was the City wrote me a letter saying that bedrooms in this situation are private, okay. You can’t have people walking into other people’s bedrooms. So they’re considered private. All of the areas are common. Are held in common. So anybody can walk into anybody’s kitchen or you know into any of the living areas or decks or you know, I had everything in the house. I mean hot tub and spa and everything, and everybody, exercise room. You know just everything that anybody would want almost. We had large screen TV’s and entertainment rooms and it was wonderful. And people loved it and all the people that lived there as part of the fire losing stuff, they all want to come back you know. They all signed six month sub leases and they all want to come back in August. And I said I’ll do whatever I can to get you back you know. So it’s a happy family. It’s more like an extended family than a bunch of you know rental units. I mean I don’t even like rental dwellings. I wouldn’t even have a rental if it was up to me. Roommates is the only way to go. But that’s the state of things today. But I want to emphasize that we went through a great deal of trouble talking about this 5 years ago and it was all agreed and determined in writing and cleared up finally. And now, since the fire, this whole issue has just exploded again. You know and it’s because we got new people working the city and the reason they told us very little and you know the people before that didn’t read them that literally. And Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 68 there’s another issue here that I need to bring up and this is even weirder. I’ve been in this house for 15 years you know working on it and I’ve had I think 5 surveys done on this house in the time that I’ve lived there. After the fire my survey was done again by the same guy for I think maybe the eighth time, and it was rejected 4 times because he couldn’t get it right. You know I agreed with staff that it wasn’t really done right. It’s crazy but in spite of all this, I still don’t even know which way my house is facing. I’ve been there 15 years and I don’t know which way my house is facing. It used to face south and the driveway went south and the front door went south and there was a paper road out there that’s going to be developed, which was the fastest way out of the, you know away from the lake there. And also the guy that owned by lot owns another lot which was on this road you know going out so the house originally had defined setbacks. You know it was 30 feet, 10 and 10, which was the way that they did things back then. But now the city decides Lotus is the main road, and they have new setbacks you know. 30 and 30 and 15 and 15 on the sides. This just kills me you know. If my house had burned, it’s a very serious problem. If my house had burned for another 10 minutes, I would have been past the 50% destruction level, and I would have lost everything. This scared the bejeebies out of me you know. I totaled up what my loses would have been, and I would have lost a half a million dollars. That’s what I would have lost after I got all my insurance and everything else. Just because of that one code. I had no idea that code existed. So I think the city’s got to look at this a little more carefully because people don’t have insurance for their house and the lot in case they can’t ever rebuild it. You know I certainly can’t. So that’s a side issue but getting back to this more important issue of which way we’re facing. I talked to some lawyers about this and they felt, both lawyers felt that the city really shouldn’t be imposing these setbacks on me because they’re the ones who changed the street, okay. If I had built it wrong, it’d be another issue but since the City changed the street there and then changed the setback in such a way that I no longer have a buildable lot. I’ve got literally a 10 foot strip down the middle of my lot that is buildable. Which is of course not buildable. So they said that this is land grabbing… You know not intentional land grabbing but land grabbing just the same because you know the city can change the streets any time and then change the variances any time and people like me, completely unaware have a calamity in their lives and we end up losing everything. So I think if this went to court, I think a jury of my peers might have a little trouble with that you know. I think this needs to be researched. I don’t know what the answer is but it doesn’t seem right to me you know that a person can lose their lot just because the city changes which road is you know going to service their land. So that’s a very basic issue in this case, which is still unresolved. And the lawyers want is the $300 an hour to research it, and I thought well maybe they just want my money you know. I don’t know. But that’s an issue and hope we can look at that further. And I would specifically request, you know I say it all the time but I’m very pro roommates for the city. I don’t like apartments. I like roommates and I think it’s a good thing. I put this in my letter to the City Council. I think it’s a good thing for people to have roommates because if you fall ill or you know the kids need more of a house, or you have some other calamity, roommates can come in and give you the extra money to keep your house, which is what happened in my case. I was able to keep the house and finish the house and develop the house and I think that’s a good thing for me and the roommates seem to like it too, and we were able to do it with, you know right in front of the eyes of the city and work this out, you know. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 69 Undestad: I’ve just got one question for you. He keeps going back to the rental thing and rental units. What issue are there that, I mean if you want to put the three kitchens and things in there, what issues do you have with the city and… Loren Veltkamp: …you know there’s the 5 amenities that make an apartment. Obviously they don’t like having tenants in my house. They’ve never, you know they never liked that. They think it’s apartments you know. Undestad: But getting a rental license, you wouldn’t do that? Loren Veltkamp: I got a rental license. That’s another funny thing. I applied for a rental license and then they determined that I didn’t need a rental license because I don’t have apartments you see. So I put my, I gave my money and I never got my money back. You know they still have my money but I don’t have a license because I don’t need one. I said screw it okay. I’m happy. And I don’t have more than 2 dogs either. I don’t know why that comes up you know. And the driveway, you know staff implied that the driveway was built to accommodate renters but the driveway was built before I was even divorced and the fact is we had two snowmobiles. A large boat. A motorcycle and two cars and we needed the driveway just to turn the boat around because there was no parking on Lotus Trail so. Undestad: You mentioned you might you know, this might need more research or might need more time. That may very… Loren Veltkamp: The code’s about rent, you know apartments versus roommates. They need to be re-written because I’ve been through this twice now. And it’s gone on for, I think this is the sixth year now that this has been an issue, and we had it quiet for 2 years. Dillon: We’re not going to do that here tonight though. Loren Veltkamp: I know. I know but it’s vague you know and it’s just a little too vague. And to me the key issue with an apartment is a locking door, you know. If you’ve got a locking door and the people are renting that space and controlling that space, that’s an apartment regardless of whether it has 2 toilets or 3 toilets and whatever. McDonald: Well I guess we’re getting a little bit off par here but I do have a question for staff but I, the purpose of all this is so you can bring roommates back in. Loren Veltkamp: No, not at all. I can bring the roommates back anyway, and they all, they do want to come back and the only reason I have applied for a variance is to make the house more livable and it’s cleaner. It’s a better design and it’s cheaper to build per square footage, and it’s just more practical for me to do it that way. It’s really just a matter of practicality. Now whether impracticality equals a hardship, you know a certain amount of screwed up design. For example, in the old house the storage was through a person’s bedroom. Okay, but under the city code you know that bedroom was a private bedroom so I couldn’t go into my storage you know without getting written consent you know, so this is an impracticality. So I said. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 70 McDonald: Well, before you go on with that, I mean that brings up a question and I don’t think we have an answer for it but I do have a question for staff. I know in the City of Minneapolis in a situation such as this, this is viewed as a boarding house. You take a residence and you let people have the bedrooms and you have the common areas and those things. Do we have a comparable ordinance that would deal with boarding houses? I mean it seems as though he’s being treated as an apartment. Yeah, maybe he’s not an apartment house but it’s definitely a boarding house. Metzer: I think that’s been part of the problem in the past years is the definition of what’s what. I don’t know if it’s finding ways around the definitions or what but. McDonald: Well I guess I’d like to see something there because I’m sorry, I’m still having a problem with all of this. It all comes down to the fact that you’re asking for a variance and I’m just not sure why I’m doing this and I need to know something there. After telling two other gentlemen that sorry, you have to tear it down or pull it up and you know, both of them are saying a great financial hardships. Understanding you’ve got one too but I would just like to know what’s going on so I would like staff to do something. I’d like to know what’s, if all we have is an ordinance for rental, for apartments, then he’s probably got a point. If we view this as a boarding house, which is different, then is there something else that he falls under? Loren Veltkamp: The staff has repeatedly told me that they like roommates. They want to encourage roommates. Roommates are fine but you’ve got to stay within the line. McDonald: Well I understand that and that’s perfectly fine. That’s why I say, what you’ve got is a boarding house. That’s the rules of a boarding house. It’s not apartments. You’ve got the common areas. I’ve seen a lot of these in Minneapolis. Loren Veltkamp: I don’t know what a boarding house is so I can’t. McDonald: Well you’ve got one. Yeah, you meet the definition and that’s what I want to find out is you know, does the City address a boarding house differently than it does an apartment. And that’s something to look at because what you’re defining and what you’re saying is going on is the same thing that goes on in downtown Minneapolis, around the University. A lot of people take their homes, the old homes down there. They convert them into boarding houses. They rent them out to students. They rent them out to individuals. They have the common areas the City of Minneapolis, also because of the fire 3 or 4 years ago where a couple students were killed, started cracking down on boarding houses. That they do fall under an ordinance. There are requirements. Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in these houses with the students? McDonald: Huh? Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in the houses? Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 71 McDonald: In some cases they were. In some cases they weren’t, and that’s what creates the problem, and that’s why I’d like to know what it is you’ve got. Maybe at that point it does justify the variance. But if staff can’t answer that right now, one of the things I would ask him to do is come up with something. Papke: Would you accept a motion to table this? McDonald: I would accept a motion to table this. Papke: Mr. Chair, I’ll make a motion that we table this application until we can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications here and doesn’t attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. Dillon: Second. Loren Veltkamp: Can I make one small request? McDonald: Well first of all let us vote on the motion. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table the variance request for 6724 Lotus Trail, Planning Case 06-25, until staff can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications and doesn’t attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: Did you wish to add something? Loren Veltkamp: I would like to just put a rush on it because my house is getting rained on every day. I don’t have a roof you know. McDonald: I understand that and staff is under certain constraints. It will be dealt with in an expeditious fashion. I’m sure that they will contact you about, we will, what is the time? Can we come back on the calendar at our next? Generous: Yeah, the next one unfortunately, our next scheduled meeting will be the 4th. Loren Veltkamp: I just can’t wait that long. I, you know, I’m under a certain time limits on the insurance company. They only pay for me to be out of the house for a certain period of time, you know. I mean it’s a hardship for me to drag this out. I’ve got people lined up to work on the house. I’ve got a roof. Papke: Can you proceed with reconstructing under your current? Loren Veltkamp: I can do what I can. Put the roof over the garage and did some second story decking. You know we’ve got tarps up. Our tarps have ripped off again with this last you know deluge we had and. I would just like to rush it. Planning Commission Meeting – June 20, 2006 72 McDonald: Yeah, well we’ll have it back by the 18th. And that’s about 3 weeks away. In the meantime, if this goes up before us for a vote, I’m afraid you’ll be turned down and you’re still looking at going before City Council. Nothing is going to happen before then anyway so at least by doing this, I think we’re only throwing maybe a 2 week delay into anything. It’s just, this doesn’t make sense and I cannot in good faith vote for it after denial of two other variances. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I just haven’t heard it tonight. Okay, with that then we will move on to the next agenda item. Resident: Excuse me. Will we get notification of the July 18th meeting because we’re all waiting to see? Generous: I can send out a notice. McDonald: Yep. Notices will be sent out again. I apologize for everybody coming in but I’m afraid at this point we just don’t have enough information. And that’s part of what we’re going to try to do is unconfuse all of this so that everybody understands what’s going on and we do finally make a recommendation that makes sense to everybody. So I appreciate everyone coming in. I understand the late hour and everything, but thanks very much and thank you for your patience and I’m sorry if this is going to cause any kind of a hardship but again, as I said to the gentlemen, two before, financial burden is not something that we can look at. We have certain rules to follow and without this making sense within those rules, we can’t vote. So we will adjourn with that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 20, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Kevin Dillon and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Craig Steesz South Lake Drive East PUBLIC HEARING: LAKESIDE: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) WITH VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR PUBLID STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING TWO, THREE, FOUR AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS, AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES, SIENNA CORPORATION, PLANNING CASE 06-26. Public Present: Name Address Thomas J. Bastasz 179 Lakeview Road E. John Ringstrom 126 Lakeview Road E. Bruce Carlson 8988 English Turn Scott Frederiksen 18626 Bearpath Trail Stephanie & Thomas Drees 14727 Boulder Point Road Ken Ross 8976 English Turn, Eden Prairie Timothy Bohlman Ron Clark Construction Rodney Walker 18992 Bearpath Trail Travis Beck 3702 22nd Avenue So, Minneapolis John Harriss 250 3rd Avenue, Suite 130, Minneapolis Todd Anderson 16338 County Road 30, Maple Grove Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 2 Steven Mangold 4852 Woodhurst Lane, Minnetonka John Vogelbacher 4940 Viking Drive #608, Edina Paul Cherne 201 85th Avenue NW, Coon Rapids John Bushey 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie Steven Schwieter 10072 Gristmill, Eden Prairie Rick & Linda Denman 6656 Pointe Lake Lucy Laura Cooper 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard Joan Ludwig 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard David Florenzano 9470 Lakeland Terrace Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarifications of the staff report regarding the conditional use, intent, hard surface coverage calculations, ingress/egress for North Bay residents during construction, trail connection, and the variance request for the beachlot. Commissioner Larson asked about the tree replacement plan. Commissioner Dillon asked for clarification on the building height variance, and what plan is in place to take care of the residents displaced with the demolition of the current building. Commissioner Undestad asked for clarification of the requirements for determining a beachlot. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on hardships for variances. Commissioner Papke asked staff to respond to the concern from the North Bay residents regarding drainage into their retention pond. John Vogelbacher with Sienna Corporation passed out development booklets to the commission and audience members outlining their project and building products. He addressed the questions of relocating current residents, pond capacity, the 1,000 foot requirement for the beachlot, and building height. Commissioner Papke asked the applicant to comment on the street crossing for the beachlot, materials used in the trail system, and traffic signage. Steve Schwieter reviewed the townhomes proposed to be built by Wooddale Builders. Rick Denman reviewed the townhomes proposed to be built by Charles Cudd Company. John Harris with Harriss Architects described the details of the condominium buildings. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. John Ringstrom, 126 Lakeview stated his concern with drainage from this site into the North Bay storm water pond and the effect on water quality and quantity. Ken Ross who lives on English Turn, objected to three aspects of the development. The 48 foot height variance of the buildings, the 30 foot setback and the plan to clear cut all the trees along the entire golf course. Tom Bastasz, President of the North Bay Homeowners Association stated their support for the project, but did have a concern with the drainage into their storm water pond and requested that Lakeside consider routing all of their storm water to their pond before going into the North Bay pond. John Bushey, 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie, which is the remnant of an old church camp site stated his concern with the location of the trailhead and beach adjacent to his property and requested that natural buffering such as shrubbery be provided. Tom Drees, 14727 Boulder Point Road, Eden Prairie, is currently in the process of building a home on Bearpath Trail. His concern was with the clear cutting of trees along the trail, lack of screening and the height variance for Building A. Scott Frederiksen who lives on Bearpath Trail also expressed concern that there is neither a public benefit or hardship associated with granting the variance request for the height of the buildings and setback. Bruce Carlson who lives on English Turn had the same concerns with the setback variance and clear cutting of the trees. Anne Florenzano, a neighbor across Lake Riley at 9470 Lakeland Terrace, Eden Prairie stated her objection to the 48 foot Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 3 variance. Joan Ludwig, 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard also was concerned with the views created by allowing the building height variance and loss of trees. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive expressed concern that this project doesn’t meet the intent of the comprehensive plan regarding housing diversity. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. After commission comments and discussion, the following motions were made. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the property located within the Lakeside development, from High Density Residential District (R12) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD-R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report, with a Variance for the eastern perimeter setback, subject to the final plat approval for the Lakeside development. All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006 ,subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 2. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants and any to be relocated. 4. A minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer. All trails and retaining walls shall be modified to remain outside the wetland buffer. The plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. 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 before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 5. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet of the OHW). 6. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 4 7. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. 8. The location of the building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be adjusted to respect all drainage and utility easements. 9. The applicant shall supply details about the water feature between the rear yards of the units in Block 3, specifically the source for the water in the water feature. As an alternative to the current proposal, the applicant should consider revising the plans to utilize storm water as an amenity as part of a rain garden system in this area. 10. The applicant shall provide additional information detailing the proposed emergency overflow (EOF) route from Pond 1 to Lake Riley. 11. The grading and landscaping proposed around Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a flat, open area so maintenance equipment can access the flared end sections from Lake Riley Road East without damaging the retaining wall or the landscaping and without being below the NWL of the pond. 12. All storm water infrastructure, including catch basins, storm sewer pipes, manholes, flared- end sections, outlet structures, ponds and swales, shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer and, eventually, the homeowners association. Prior to final plat recording, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City that outlines the parameters of operation, inspection and maintenance of the storm water infrastructure. This agreement shall be transferred to the homeowners association prior to the developer relinquishing responsibility for the development. 13. The SWPPP shall be provided to the City for review by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. 14. The plans shall be revised to show that erosion control blanket will be installed over all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper. 15. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the pond shall be provided. The EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 16. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation 17. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Perimeter controls and inlet protection shall be in place and maintained as needed until 70% of the vegetation is established. 18. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. 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 Certificate of Occupancy (CO). Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 5 19. 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. Plans shall show how the temporary basin will be constructed and how water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet. 20. The proposed silt fence along Wetland Basin B shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland buffer. Silt fence shall be placed at the proposed high water level elevation of the proposed storm water pond. 21. Street gutters and catch basins are considered “surface waters” and shall be protected from exposed soils with a positive slope within 200 linear feet. Following installation of curb and gutter, silt fence shall be installed curbside along all positive slopes to the street with exposed soils. 22. Plans shall be revised to show erosion and sediment control measures for the road ditch along Lyman Boulevard. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 23. Details for concrete washout areas where drivers will wash out their trucks and how the water will be treated should be developed and included in the SWPPP. 24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $195,293. 26. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 28. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 6 29. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. 30. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings along the east property line to minimum bufferyard requirements. 31. No trees shall be removed behind the northwestern corner of the silt fence as shown on grading plans dated 05/19/06. 32. A total of 139 trees shall be planted in the development as required for canopy coverage. 33. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading commences. 34. The lowest floor elevation of 106 Lakeview Road East must be field verified. 35. The high water level of the proposed pond must be minimum three feet lower than the lowest floor elevation of the adjacent homes along Lakeview Road East. 36. The high water level of the wetland must be determined. 37. The proposed grading in the northwest corner near the wetland needs to be adjusted so that the first floor elevation of the homes within Lot 13, Block 2 are at least one foot above the emergency overflow elevation of the wetland. 38. Pavement grades at the following locations must be adjusted so that the grade does not exceed 7%: West of Building A, and the northern street extending from the Lakeview Road East intersection. 39. Private driveway grades shall not exceed 10%. 40. Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. 41. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan. 42. High point elevations between the catch basins must be shown along the east side of Block 2. 43. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 44. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. 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. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 7 46. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 47. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and maintained. 48. The watermain extension from Lyman Boulevard must be wet-tapped and must be done under traffic. 49. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the utility extension within Lake Riley Road East. 50. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 51. The 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement on the northwest side of the property must be vacated. 52. The proposed pool house must not lie within the drainage and utility easement. 53. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 54. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Lyman Boulevard Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material, and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Lyman Boulevard Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction. 55. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant’s plans, is completed.” All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan for 233 housing units and a community building with pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, with a Variance for building height for the condominium units, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 8 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The pool, including the pool deck, shall be relocated outside the 50-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard. 3. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 4. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area threshold. 5. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. 7. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 8. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 9. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 10. 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. 11. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. 12. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 13. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 9 14. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 15. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 16. Approved fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access roads shall comply with requirements of Section 503 and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. Pursuant to Section 503.1.1 2000 Minnesota Fire Code.” All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beach lot with a Variance from the requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beach lot, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. 2. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet of the OHW). 3. The area of Outlot B shall be recalculated to include only the area within the outlot above the OHW. The amount of shoreline for Outlot B shall be calculated along the OHW. The number of docks and slips permitted by the conditional use permit for the beach lot shall not exceed the number of docks and slips allowable by City Code for the actual beach lot area and frontage. 4. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 10 5. The applicant shall work with staff on the design of and materials for proposed path from Lyman Boulevard to the dock to minimize the impacts of runoff from the path to the shoreline and Lake Riley. 6. The proposed walking path along the shoreline shall be made of a pervious surface such as mulch, crushed rock or turf grass and shall not be located below the OHW. Special attention shall be paid to ensure that the path materials are not prone to erosion. The plans shall be revised to show the woodland gardens above the OHW of Lake Riley. 7. An individual permit shall be obtained from the DNR for any beach sand applications that do not meet the DNR standards for sand blanket applications without an individual permit. 8. One beach area shall be permitted to minimize impacts to the lake and to adjacent residents. 9. The applicant shall work with staff on the placement of the beach lot infrastructure to preserve as many of the existing trees in that area as possible. A survey of the area with the tree locations will be required and used to facilitate tree preservation. The applicant shall also work with staff on the location of the woodland path and woodland gardens along the path.” All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ABRA AUTO BODY & GLASS: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR SHOP AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 14,430 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO A 4,074 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 60 LAKE DRIVE EAST, PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, APPLICANT ABRA AUTO BODY, PLANNING CASE 06-24. Public Present: Name Address Henry Cornelius 6322 Timber Trail, Minneapolis, 55439 Maleah Alosta Alliant Engineering, 233 Park Ave, Mpls Carol Kahnke 154 Choctaw Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Dillon asked for clarification on the number of parking spots and cars that can be parked outside. Henry Cornelius spoke on behalf of Abra Auto Body and Glass and addressed the issue of outside parking spots. Commissioner Papke stated his only concern with this proposal is air pollution issues associated with the paint booth. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Carol Kahnke, 154 Choctaw Circle was concerned with the number of cars allowed to be parked outside of the building. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. After commission comments the following motion was made. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 11 Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for Site Plan approval for a 14,430 square-foot expansion to a 4,074 square-foot building, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., dated 5/19/06, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 3. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 4. The expansion must comply with Minnesota Accessibility Code (MSBC 1341 required). 5. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign proposed on the site. 6. The lighting must be shielded to prevent off-site glare. 7. The builder must comply with the following fire prevention policies: 04, 06, 07, 29, 34, 36, 40, 47, 49 and 52. 8. The applicant shall protect all existing trees to be preserved during grading and construction. Any trees damaged, removed or killed that were to be saved shall be replaced by the applicant prior to final inspection for the site. Trees with less than 60% canopy shall be replaced before landscaping financial guarantees are released. 9. Mechanical equipment must be screened. No wooded fences are permitted on the roof. 10. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average width of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland A. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install a minimum of 4 wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 11. A temporary cover of mulch and temporary seed shall be in place within 14 days of rough and or final grade for any exposed soils or if any exposed soils are not actively worked within a 14-day time period. 12. During installation of the proposed storm sewer infrastructure to the existing storm sewer, temporary caps or plugs shall be needed until the installation of the pipes and inlets are complete to prevent sediment from entering the storm sewer. 13. Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will handle the concrete wash water. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 12 14. All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is permanently protected by vegetative cover. 15. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Additional existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall also be protected. 16. The proposed silt fence along Wetland A shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland buffer. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 17. The applicant shall make certain that all construction equipment uses the entire length of the rock construction entrance and that the entrance is properly maintained to minimize soil tracking onto streets. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation (for discharge into their storm water infrastructure), Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. The developer’s engineer must submit data showing that the proposed runoff rate and volume to the existing storm sewer on the north side of the site will not exceed the existing rate and volume. 20. The developer’s engineer must verify that the existing stormwater pond southwest of the site has adequate dead and live storage for the additional impervious surface. 21. The existing service must be abandoned at the main. 22. The wet tap must occur outside the operating hours of the businesses which access the private drive. 23. The developer’s contractor must submit a written request to the City Engineer for the proposed construction time and date for the wet tap.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for a Conditional Use Permit for a major auto repair and body shop, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 13 1. The development shall comply with the site plan requirements approved as part of Planning Case #06-24. 2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas. 3. The drop-off location for damaged vehicles will be limited to the parking stalls in the southwest corner of the lot behind the evergreens. 4. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within closed building except minor maintenance including, but not limited to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. 5. No exterior public address system is permitted. 6. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. 7. Disposal of vehicle fluids shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. 8. Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: THOMAS SCHWARTZ: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-22. Don Asleson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman McDonald asked for clarification on the extent of construction involved with the gazebo and fire pit area. Thomas Schwartz presented background information relative to his variance request. Commissioner Larson asked for an explanation of why conservation easements weren’t put on plat drawings. Commissioner Dillon asked staff to comment on what further harm would be done to the wetlands if the structures were kept in place. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After commission discussion and comments, the following motion was made. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant’s hardship is self created in nature. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 14 3. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. In addition, the Planning Commission orders the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. All voted in favor, except Larson and Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: GARY CARLSON: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3891 WEST 62ND STREET, PLANNING CASE 06-23. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. The commissioners asked for clarification on why this request was coming before the commission again and what had changed. Luke Melchert, speaking on behalf of the applicant, presented their request. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification on the agreement between the City and Mr. Carlson which allows 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. Chairman McDonald asked for clarification on how this agreement came about. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street presented a letter of support from an additional neighbor and reviewed the other letters of support for their variance request. He showed pictures of the buildings on the property. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. After commissioners comments and discussion the following motion was made. Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – June 20, 2006 15 PUBLIC HEARING: LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25. Public Present: Name Address Sig & Don Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive Pat & Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road Bruce Johansson 6701 Mohawk Drive Jim Boeshans 6651 Pawnee Drive Mike Henderson 6701 Mohawk Drive Shelly Berg 6701 Mohawk Drive Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to explain how granting this variance will help with enforcement of rental property. Commissioner Dillon asked about the current status of the rebuilding. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on the building permit history and conditions regarding city code. Chairman McDonald asked for clarification on the issue of intensifying a non-conforming use. Commissioner Dillon asked staff to comment on if this was not a rental situation, if staff would recommend approval of the variance. The applicant, Loren Veltkamp provided historical background on this property and the reasons for his variance request. Chairman McDonald directed staff to find out if a boarding house, which is what Mr. Veltkamp has, is treated differently than an apartment building. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table the variance request for 6724 Lotus Trail, Planning Case 06-25, until staff can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications and doesn’t attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: June 30, 2006 SUBJ: Recommendation from Park and Recreation Commission to Modify 2006 Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program (CIP) This past spring, two new trail projects were identified as priorities within the community. The first is a final segment of the “internal” trail located at Lake Ann Park. Construction of this 780 ft. trail will satisfy a number of needs. Primary among these is the provision of a pedestrian access into the park from West 78th Street, an accessible route from the south parking lots to the ballfields, and a secondary access into the park during emergency and special event situations. The second project grew out of an ongoing improvement project at Curry Farms Park. Last year’s playground project has resulted in the entire park being disturbed by construction activity. The trail proposed for improvement and extension is located at the far end of the park. It is in the city’s best interests to complete the needed trail work prior to the extensive restoration work required to finalize the project. Staff has solicited two quotes for the work included in these two projects. Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. submitted the low quote of $46,295. Midwest Asphalt Corporation submitted a quote of $115,891. To cover the cost of these newly identified projects, staff is recommending that three projects currently in the 2006 Park and Trail CIP be modified or deleted. We propose that the off-leash dog area allocation be modified from $50,000 to $30,000 to reflect the actual amount pledged to Carver County. In addition, it is recommended that the Rice Marsh Lake Park and South Lotus Lake Park Trails be deleted from the CIP. These two projects, estimated to cost $15,000 each, have been found to be unbuildable. The planned route for the Rice Marsh Lake Trail cannot be drained effectively and, if constructed, would turn the park into a pond during heavy rains. The planned route for the South Lotus Lake trail terminates at a private street. Terminating a public trail at a private street is not fair to either the public trail users or the homeowners residing on the private street. These modifications would result in $50,000 being made available to accomplish the proposed Lake Ann Park and Curry Farms Park Trail improvements. Mr. Todd Gerhardt June 30, 2006 Page 2 On Tuesday evening, June 27, the Park and Recreation Commission toured all of the proposed project sites. The Commission was excited about the newly identified projects and concurred that construction should move forward. I did sense some disappointment that the previously identified projects could not be completed; however, again there was concurrence that it was not in the city’s best interests to construct the other two trails segments. At the conclusion of their discussion, Commissioner Scharfenberg moved and Commissioner Murphy seconded that the City Council modify the 2006 Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program by adding the Lake Ann Park and Curry Farms Park Trail Improvements at a not to exceed amount of $49,999. To cover the costs of these new projects, the Rice Marsh Lake Park Trail, the South Lotus Lake Park Trail, and a portion of the funding designated for an off-leash dog area would be deleted from the CIP. ATTACHMENTS 1. Report to Park and Recreation Commission dated June 15, 2006 2. Price Quotes 3. Project maps MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: June 15, 2006 SUBJ: Recommendation to modify 2006 park and Trail Capital Improvement Program to accomplish Trail Construction at Lake Ann and Curry Farms Parks LAKE ANN PARK Staff is proposing to extend an existing internal park trail from its terminus near ball fields #1 and #6 south to the West 78th Street frontage road for a total distance of approximately 780 feet. We are also recommending that approximately 370 feet of existing trail receive an overlay. CURRY FARMS PARK Staff is proposing to reconstruct approximately 250 feet of an existing internal park trail, overlay approximately 470 feet of the existing internal park trail, and complete an additional 330-foot neighborhood park trail connector to Knob Hill Lane. QUOTES Staff received quotes from two qualified contractors for the work proposed. Plehal Blacktopping, Inc. Midwest Asphalt Corp. Lake Ann Park Trail $19,785 $32,331 Lake Ann Overlay $3,450 $8,547 Sub-Total $23,235 $40,878 Curry Farm Overlay $3,520 $11,468 Curry Farm Reconstruct $5,950 $14,375 Curry Farm Connector $13,590 $49,170 Sub-Total $23,060 $75,013 Grand Total $46,295 $115,891 Park & Recreation Commission June 15, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE Neither of these two projects are currently identified in the 2006 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program. The new trail for Lake Ann Park is being proposed as a safety improvement to separate pedestrians and other non-vehicular travelers from the current entrance at the park which is designed for vehicles only. The Miracles for Mitch race committee is also looking forward to this new trail to alleviate conflict between their bike riders and vehicles using the park entrance. The Curry Farms trail project is an extension of last year’s playground improvement project. Upon mobilizing heavy equipment at the park, it became evident that expanding the scope of the playground project to include this trail work was justified. Staff is proposing that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council modify the 2006 Park and Trail Capital Improvement program to accomplish these important trail projects. We propose that the off-leash dog area allocation be modified from $50,000 to $30,000 to reflect the actual amount pledged to Carver County. In addition, it is recommended that the Rice Marsh Lake Park Trail and South Lotus Lake Park Trails be deleted from the CIP. These two projects, both estimated to cost $15,000 each, have been found to be unbuildable. The planned route for the Rice Marsh Lake Trail cannot be drained effectively and, if constructed, would literally turn the park into a pond. The planned route for the South Lotus Lake trail terminates at a private street. Terminating a public trail at a private street is not fair to both the public trail users and the homeowners residing on the private street. These modifications would result in $50,000 being made available to accomplish the proposed Lake Ann Park and Curry Farms Park Trail improvements. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council modify the 2006 Park and Trail Capital Improvement Program by adding the Lake Ann Park and Curry Farms Park Trail Improvements at a not to exceed amount of $49,999, and deleting the Rice Marsh Lake Park Trail and South Lotus Lake Park Trail, and a portion of the funding designated for an off-leash dog area to cover the costs of these new projects. ATTACHMENTS 1. Plehal Blacktopping Quotation. 2. Midwest Asphalt Corporation Quotation. 3. Project Maps. g:\park\th\trail cip amendment.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council Members FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director DATE: July 6, 2006 SUBJ: Approve 2006 Transfers and Creation of Revolving Assessment Fund BACKGROUND As you probably are aware, a portion of the excess cash reserves in the General Fund, Historic Preservation Trust Fund, and the Permanent Revolving Debt Fund have been identified by staff for the eventual use and creation of a Revolving Assessment Fund. This fund would be used to fund the city’s portion of the costs for the annual street reconstruction program. In addition, this fund will receive special assessment collections to fund the property owner’s portion of the construction costs. Staff has also noted that additional tax levy will become available in 2010 due to a large reduction in the city’s tax levy debt burden, and that additional levy could be used to fund this program as well. The concept of this fund has been discussed over the last few years and the following resolution is to formally create the fund and make the transfers from the funds listed in the resolution and in the “Available Cash Surplus” spreadsheet. In addition, staff is recommending the use of these funds for previously committed projects including reimbursement for a portion of the legal costs related to the Library settlement ($70,000), Lake Ann parking lot improvements ($395,000), and an entry monument to the city’s cemetery ($25,000). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council establish a “Revolving Assessment Fund” to fund the city’s portion of the costs for the annual street reconstruction program. In addition and related to the establishment of that fund, staff is recommending the transfers listed in the attached resolution be made in 2006 to create this fund. This action requires a simple majority vote of those present at the meeting. ATTACHMENT 1. Resolution 2. “Available Cash Surplus” Spreadsheet 3. “Revolving Assessment Fund” Forecast Spreadsheet CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: July 10, 2006 RESOLUTION NO: 2006- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 2006 FUND TRANSFERS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, has determined that it is expedient to establish an “Revolving Assessment Fund” and transfer the following amounts to create the fund and transfer related amounts for previously identified projects; and WHEREAS, fund 101 (General Fund) and fund 300 (Permanent Revolving Debt Fund) and fund 800 (Historic Preservation Trust Fund) have transferred the amounts as listed below to fund 601 (Revolving Assessment Fund); and WHEREAS, Fund 601 (Revolving Assessment Fund) have transferred the amount listed below for previously committed projects to fund 400 (Capital Replacement Fund); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes the Finance Director to transfer the following amounts as shown. Transfer from: Transfer to: Amount 100 General Fund 601 2,466,497.00 300 Permanent Revolving Debt Fund 601 3,200,000.00 800 Historic Preservation Trust Fund 601 469,944.00 601 Revolving Assessment Fund 400 490,000.00 Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of July, 2006. . ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CI T Y O F C H A N H A S S E N Av a i l a b l e C a s h S u r p l u s v s . P o t e n t i a l C o m m i t m e n t s 12 / 3 1 / 0 5 E s t i m a t e CO M M I T M E N T S 2, 4 6 6 , 4 9 7 G e n e r a l F u n d ( P e r P o l i c y ) C A F R 1, 2 9 2 , 2 6 5 1 5 % c a t a s t o p h i c r e s e r v e 3, 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 C l o s e d B o n d F u n d 7 0 , 0 0 0 L i b r a r y S e t t l e m e n t ( w a s $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) 46 9 , 9 4 4 H i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t i o n T r u s t 3 9 5 , 0 0 0 L a k e A n n P a r k i n g L o t s / D r i v e w a y s 25 , 0 0 0 C e m e t a r y M o n u m e n t 0 C a p i t a l R e p l a c e m e n t F u n d 1 , 3 3 7 , 4 3 6 E x c e s s t o P a y d e b t l e v i e s t h r u 2 0 0 9 0 C l o c k T o w e r S i t e a s k j u s t i n i f w e s o l d 0 R e d i m i x S i t e - a s k j u s t i n i f e a s t h a l f c a n s e l l 7, 4 2 8 , 7 0 6 1 , 8 2 7 , 4 3 6 7, 4 2 8 , 7 0 6 Av a i l a b l e C a s h (1 , 2 9 2 , 2 6 5 ) 15 % c a t a s t o p h i c r e s e r v e (1 , 8 2 7 , 4 3 6 ) Co m m i t m e n t s 4, 3 0 9 , 0 0 5 Av a i l a b l e f o r u s e i n R e v o l v i n g A s s e s s m e n t F u n d PO T E N T I A L A V A I L A B L E C A S H Re v o l v i n g A s s e s s m e n t F u n d 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 4 201520162017 Pr o j e c t C o s t 50 0 , 0 0 0 2, 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 As s e s s m e n t s 4 0 % (2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (8 8 0 , 0 0 0 ) (5 6 0 , 0 0 0 ) (4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (7 6 0 , 0 0 0 ) (4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) Ci t y S h a r e 30 0 , 0 0 0 1, 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 84 0 , 0 0 0 60 0 , 0 0 0 1, 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 60 0 , 0 0 0 60 0 , 0 0 0 60 0 , 0 0 0 60 0 , 0 0 0 600,000 600,000 600,000 Fu n d B a l - B O Y 4, 3 0 9 , 0 0 5 4, 0 6 9 , 5 3 5 1, 9 8 4 , 3 3 1 80 4 , 7 7 1 94 , 7 1 0 (6 8 8 , 5 5 6 ) (8 2 6 , 6 8 3 ) (7 7 5 , 8 9 6 ) (6 5 9 , 7 1 2 ) (498,621) (301,475) (180,902) L e v y 78 5 , 1 9 5 41 1 , 9 7 0 53 4 , 9 9 0 53 2 , 5 9 0 53 1 , 3 9 0 531,290 526,790 813,690 Re p a y m e n t 14 2 , 0 0 0 57 , 0 0 0 19 7 , 0 0 0 28 7 , 1 8 0 35 1 , 5 9 4 47 3 , 9 8 1 53 8 , 3 9 5 60 2 , 8 0 9 64 4 , 2 2 3 674,637 599,051 573,285 Pr o j e c t C o s t s (5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (2 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) In v e s t a b l e B a l a n c e 3, 9 5 1 , 0 0 5 1, 9 2 6 , 5 3 5 78 1 , 3 3 1 91 , 9 5 1 (6 6 8 , 5 0 1 ) (8 0 2 , 6 0 5 ) (7 5 3 , 2 9 7 ) (6 4 0 , 4 9 7 ) (4 8 4 , 0 9 8 ) (292,694) (175,633) 206,073 In t e r e s t 11 8 , 5 3 0 57 , 7 9 6 23 , 4 4 0 2, 7 5 9 (2 0 , 0 5 5 ) (2 4 , 0 7 8 ) (2 2 , 5 9 9 ) (1 9 , 2 1 5 ) (1 4 , 5 2 3 ) (8,781) (5,269) 6,182 Fu n d B a l - E O Y 4, 0 6 9 , 5 3 5 1, 9 8 4 , 3 3 1 80 4 , 7 7 1 94 , 7 1 0 (6 8 8 , 5 5 6 ) (8 2 6 , 6 8 3 ) (7 7 5 , 8 9 6 ) (6 5 9 , 7 1 2 ) (4 9 8 , 6 2 1 ) (301,475) (180,902) 212,255 Re p a y m e n t S c h e d u l e 8 y r a s s m t @ 6 % Pr o j e c t Y e a r 20 0 5 $1 4 2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 23 , 0 0 0 20 0 6 $3 4 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 34 , 0 0 0 20 0 7 $1 4 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 14 0 , 0 0 0 14 0 , 0 0 0 14 0 , 0 0 0 14 0 , 0 0 0 14 0 , 0 0 0 14 0 , 0 0 0 140,000 20 0 8 $9 0 , 1 8 0 . 1 3 90 , 1 8 0 90 , 1 8 0 90 , 1 8 0 90 , 1 8 0 90 , 1 8 0 90,180 90,180 20 0 9 $6 4 , 4 1 4 . 3 8 64 , 4 1 4 64 , 4 1 4 64 , 4 1 4 64 , 4 1 4 64,414 64,414 64,414 20 1 0 $1 2 2 , 3 8 7 . 3 2 12 2 , 3 8 7 12 2 , 3 8 7 12 2 , 3 8 7 122,387 122,387 122,387 20 1 1 $6 4 , 4 1 4 . 3 8 64 , 4 1 4 64 , 4 1 4 64,414 64,414 64,414 20 1 2 $6 4 , 4 1 4 . 3 8 64 , 4 1 4 64,414 64,414 64,414 $6 4 , 4 1 4 . 3 8 64,414 64,414 64,414 $6 4 , 4 1 4 . 3 8 64,414 64,414 $64,414.3864,414 $64,414.38 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SI T E D A T A PC DATE: June 20, 2006 CC DATE: July 10, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: July 18, 2006 CASE #: 06-23 BY: JM STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: After-the-fact Variance request for a 22-foot front yard setback for an existing four- stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District. LOCATION: 3891 West 62nd Street Lot 6, Schmid’s Acre Tracts APPLICANT: Gary & Maureen Carlson and Alan & Megan Moore 3891 West 62nd Street Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 3.86 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for relief from 30-foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction. Staff is recommending denial of the request. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has agreed to remove two additional existing accessory structures. 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. 4 Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20 July 10, 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact Variance for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for an existing four-stall garage, which is located 22 feet from the front property line, and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in RSF District to permit 4,917 square feet of accessory structures. The site is located north of Highway 7 and west of Church Road at 3891 West 62nd Street. Access to the site is gained via West 62nd Street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (1) In the RSF and R-4 Districts accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES Sec. 20-71. Purpose. The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; and (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. BACKGROUND The subject property was created as part of the Schmid’s Acre Tracts subdivision which was recorded in 1913. The applicant states that the property has been in the family for four generations and has maintained an agricultural use for that long. In 1970, when the first Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the subject property was given a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential. The agricultural use has not changed and precedes the existence of current zoning ordinances and is, therefore, a legal nonconforming use. In January of 2004, it came to the attention of the City that the applicant had built three detached accessory structures on the property without building permits: a 995 square-foot four-stall garage (marked A on graphic below), a 526 square-foot “loafing shed” (marked B), and a 466 square-foot “machine storage shed” (marked C). Together these buildings total 1,987 square feet of detached accessory structures that have been built without a permit. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 4, 2006 for a similar variance request which was denied. The current request is different from the previous request in that the applicant has agreed to remove two additional existing accessory structures. The two storage sheds to be removed are located to the south of the principal structure. They are 216 square feet and 227 square feet in area respectively for a total of 443 square feet of accessory structure to be removed. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20 July 10, 2006 Page 3 There are three single family homes located directly to the east of the subject property. Two of the neighboring properties are 1 acre in area; the other is 0.75 acres in area. The area to the south of the subject property has been platted as Hidden Creek Meadows containing 21 single-family residential lots that are currently being developed. If the subject property is ever developed, it is intended to connect Pipewood Lane in Hidden Creek Meadows with West 62nd Street via the subject property. ANALYSIS Built w/o permit Grandfathered New Pole Barn To be removed A B C Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20 July 10, 2006 Page 4 1,000 Square-Foot Accessory Structure Restriction The subject property lies within the RSF district and is, therefore, subject to a maximum 1,000 square-foot accessory structure restriction. However, the subject property has a legal nonconforming agricultural use and several detached accessory structures. Residential properties in the A2 and RR districts do not have an accessory structure restriction as the RSF district does, but are limited to a maximum 20% hard surface coverage. The applicant owns a number of horses. Due to the age and poor conditions of existing structures sheltering these horses, the City encouraged the applicant to provide the horses with better shelter. Following the City’s request, the applicant pulled a building permit to erect a 1,200 square-foot pole barn on the property. Approval of the building permit for the pole barn was contingent upon removal of five accessory structures comprising 1,199 square feet. The City signed an agreement with the applicant stating that the five structures would be removed. As security for the agreement, the City is holding a $5,000 escrow. Since the square footage of structures being removed equals that of the new pole barn the City has requested be constructed, the City approved the building permit for the pole barn since this improves conditions for the horses on the site. The applicant has also agreed to remove two storage sheds (pictured below), located south of the principal structure, contingent upon approval of this variance request. There are currently thirteen detached accessory structures on the subject property totaling 6,566 square feet. With the removal of seven of these structures the property will contain six structures totaling 4,917 square feet. This amount exceeds the RSF 1,000 square-foot accessory structure restriction by 3,917 square feet and is nonconforming. Chanhassen City Code does not permit the intensification of nonconformities. By building additional accessory structures (A, B and C) without a permit, the applicant intensified the existing nonconforming square footage of accessory structures by 1,987 square feet. City Code encourages the elimination or reduction of impacts of nonconforming uses. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20 July 10, 2006 Page 5 Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for an existing garage that is setback 22 feet from the front property line which fronts on West 62nd Street. Accessory Structure A (four-stall garage) The existing right-of-way for West 62nd Street lying within Chanhassen is 18.5 feet wide per the survey. The right-of-way within the City of Shorewood is 40 feet wide. West 62nd Street lies within Shorewood. Staff is not aware of any plans to widen West 62nd Street. By providing a 30-foot setback, the applicant would reduce the likelihood of damage to the garage should a vehicle veer off West 62nd Street. The applicant has a short boulder wall approximately two or three feet in height on the south side of West 62nd Street which provides a physical barrier between the subject property and passing traffic. View of four-stall garage from West 62nd Street facing southeast Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20 July 10, 2006 Page 6 The small porch on the northern elevation of the house, and a large tree in that vicinity, has been sketched on the survey by the applicant. Due to these features’ proximity to the four-stall garage, it appears that there may be merit to the applicant’s claim that a small commuter bus would have difficulty maneuvering between the house and the garage if the garage met the 30-foot front yard setback requirement. However, if the garage maintained a 30-foot setback there would still be enough space for the commuter bus to make a three-point turn pulling up to the north side of the house, then backing up and exiting the property. 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: 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, 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 in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The subject property has maintained a preexisting agricultural use since before current ordinances were adopted. The applicant would be able to maintain the agricultural use without variances to allow the continued use of the three accessory structures in question. 2. That 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, however, not to agricultural lands. 3. That 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. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the three accessory structures was completed without a building permit; this constitutes a self-created hardship. 5. That 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 of land 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 nearness of the garage to the public street. Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20 July 10, 2006 Page 7 6. That 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 decrease visibility or site distances, or increases 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 or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion: “The Planning Commission City Council denies the variance for a 22-foot front yard setback for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the nonconforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission City Council orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings.” Should the Planning Commission City Council choose to approve both requests, staff recommends the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion: “The Planning Commission City Council approves the variance for a 22-foot front yard setback for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District to permit 4,917 square feet of detached accessory structures at 3891 West 62 nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report with the following conditions: 1. Building permits for the four-stall garage, loafing shed and machine storage shed must be obtained and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. No new accessory structures or additions to existing accessory structures shall be permitted.” The Planning Commission City Council has numerous options for alternatives to either of these recommendations that would permit the applicant to retain use of one or two of these structures but not all three. If the applicant is granted use of any of these three structures, staff recommends a condition be added stating: Carlson Variance Planning Case #06-23 June 20 July 10, 2006 Page 8 1. Building permits must be obtained for the approved structures and all must comply with the Minnesota State Building Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Luke Melchert to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006. 4. Letter from Gary Carlson to the City of Chanhassen dated May 19, 2006. 5. Letter from Dale & Linda Keehl of 3841 West 62nd Street to the City of Chanhassen. 6. Letter from Terry Toll of 6250 Cartway Lane to the City of Chanhassen. 7. Building Permit Agreement between City of Chanhassen and Gary Carlson. 8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 9. Lot Survey. 10. Sketched Lot Survey. 11. Aerial Photograph. 12. Accessory Structure Photos. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-23 carlson variance\cc update.doc Letter to Robert Generous from Metropolitan Council dated June 19, 2006. Letter to Doug Hoese, Building Inspector, dated June 20, 2006. City of Chanhassen Law Enforcement Speed Trailer Report dated June 29, 2006. City of Chanhassen Law Enforcement Speed Trailer Report dated June 30, 2006. Review of Claims Paid dated June 30, 2006.