CC Minutes 8-22-05
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, where are we at with the extra deputies or the, are you
fully staffed up now with traffic detail and the extra deputy for that?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. As of, the month of July was actually the first complete month where
we’ve been up to full staff. So that probably helped a bit.
Councilman Lundquist: I have to believe that’s why there was 537 traffic stops.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Absolutely, yes. And they’ve been hitting some different areas very hard that
they’ve been targeting. We’ve really been targeting the Powers Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road,
Kerber Boulevard intersections trying to curtail the passing on the right. We’ve been hitting that
very, very hard and fast for quite a while, but especially last month so.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Sgt. Jim Olson: I also just wanted to bring up school will be in session shortly and in a couple of
weeks, so motorists need to be careful when they’re driving through neighborhoods and school
zones to slow down. Keep an eye on what you’re doing and the kids that will be walking to
school and standing at bus stops, and deputies will be doing extra enforcement in school zones
and in neighborhoods when schools are in session and kids are going back and forth to school.
And if residents are having traffic issues in their neighborhood, I encourage them to give us a
call, either at the sheriff’s office or they can even call me personally at 952-227-1601 and we can
have some deputies monitor the situation, and also our traffic enforcement, traffic education car
that we have now. Any other issues or anything for the sheriff’s office at all?
Mayor Furlong: Anything else for Sergeant Olson? No? Very good.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Have a nice evening. Enjoy the weather.
Todd Gerhardt: I don’t see Mr. Geske.
Mayor Furlong: We have his report in the packet. Things seem to be going pretty steady there
so if any issues come forward we can bring it up at our next meeting. Are there any questions
that the council members have that the City Manager can relay back to the Fire Department?
No? Okay. Thank you.
CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, EDEN TRACE
CORPORATION; REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD);
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT.
Public Present:
3
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Name Address
Peter & LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail
JoEllen Radermacher 2479 Bridle Creek Trail
Sarah & Steve Dale 2487 Bridle Creek Trail
Ben Merriman Eden Trace Corporation
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated Mayor, this is a continuation from the last
meeting so staff was given some direction to work with the applicant to resolve a couple of
issues so I’d like to go through those at this time and Paul Oehme, the City Engineer will also be
addressing a portion of this regarding traffic. Again the subject site is located at the corner of
Lyman and Galpin, the northwest corner. Some of the issues regarded design issues and those
modifications have been made in the design standards which start on page, of your staff report,
page 4. …permitted uses we did take out the hotel/motel as a possible use. The other thing that
was talked about was building height. Building of the lots facing Trotters Ridge would be
limited to two stories or 30 feet in height, so that’s a restriction of height on both of those. One
of the issues that also came up revolved around signage. The current city sign ordinance states
that there should be no lighting abutting residential districts so that would include Galpin.
There’d be no perimeter signs on the buildings facing Galpin or to the north which would be
facing Trotters Ridge. The sign ordinance does allow internal signage and it also allows signage
facing Lyman and those could be eliminated. Just want to clarify too we are recommending that
there be a sign, a business park identification sign on that, on Galpin to get identification to go
into that business park and then once you get in there’ll be internal lit signs, again per city
ordinance, but that modification has been made. Again site lighting, consistent with the city
ordinance on individual lots be directed downward. Again consistent with the city ordinance.
And also we modified a couple other conditions in your staff report and those would be condition
number 48. Those have been met. The registered engineer. Condition number 53. The
developer shall either dedicate Outlot C to the City for open space purposes or dedicate a
conservation easement over Outlot C. They’re willing to dedicate or do the conservation
easement. Either was acceptable to the applicant. Again we’re still working on the drainage
issue and that will come in with the details on the next level of final plat and that’s for the
drainage issue on Lot 2 in Trotters Ridge on Lots 5 and 6 and Outlot C… Again the building
setback along Lot 6 would still be the 100 foot and we’re looking at that berm in that area. There
would be no berming in the wetland or the treed area here. Over the wetland again implications
to the saving the trees and the impact to the wetland. So with that the other recommendation was
the traffic study and I’ll let Paul Oehme, the City Engineer address that.
Paul Oehme: Thank you. Mayor, City Council members. As the council directed, we did
approach the County on the issue of the right-in/right-out along Lyman Boulevard. The County
did direct or request that the developer look at a traffic study in this area to see if a right-in/right-
out would improve the situation, and how that would potentially impact or improve the situation
in the long term. The applicant did hire a traffic consultant, TDI to look at this particular
development and the right-in/right-out issue. The report has been included in your packet so I
won’t go through that in too detail but bottom line is, the traffic study did not come back with
any improvements, significant improvements to this area and long term future needs of both the
corridor on Galpin and Lyman Boulevard. Based upon those findings from the traffic study, the
4
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
County did not wish to have that access be made at this time. Full access be provided off of
Galpin.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else from staff at this, yeah okay.
Kate Aanenson: Staff was also asked to evaluate the impacts regardless of what the traffic study
said. To look at the impact of the road, a second entrance on Lyman. As the City Engineer
indicated, the County was not supportive of that but if the council was to choose, it has
significant impacts. The tree preservation area. There’s two alternatives shown here. Saving the
trees on one side, or saving the trees on the other side to give back, so it definitely has an impact
on the preservation area. So staff again declares not recommending that secondary entrance at
this time. So with that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and
we’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, can you show me Outlot B and the berming that is going in on
Lot 5?
Kate Aanenson: There is a wetland right here. There is significant setback that exceeds what’s
required so what the staff is recommending based on the elevation of that building, the two
stories, that we would look at that as part of site plan review. There’s a 14 foot buffer there to
see when that site comes in, what’s the appropriate screening depending on the height and trying
to get a berm in there. It meets the setback requirements so by putting a berm in you’re actually
penalizing, so we’re trying to see what we can do to, based on elevations. We believe that a
modest berm can be put in with trees on top that would provide a very effective screening base
on the existing setback.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But you will work.
Kate Aanenson: With that when it comes in for site plan, correct. Again each building will
come through.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilman Lundquist: On that berming Kate, with that, assuming that that’s now a two story
building, does that allow any modifications in the parking at all or anything like that to push
those buildings further to the south?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Councilman Lundquist: To increase that setback.
Kate Aanenson: Again that’s a hypothetical square footage, which we showed for illustrative
purposes but certainly when that comes in that’d be something we’d look at to try to maximize
that. That would be the goal.
5
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: So we can always increase that if we want to at that time.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then Paul, on the traffic study, or Mr. Mayor, and maybe
this is a question for you that. How do they, as I read through there, how does TDI, how do they
determine where the traffic’s going to come from and to and from and which direction they’re
going and all of that? All of that information that they used.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, the TDI did use the ITE trip generation manual to determine the traffic
projections and it’s consistent with the daily traffic that we had estimated. The percentages were
allocated. Typically allocated. In terms of where the population centers are. Typically you
know we would envision most of the traffic going to the Minneapolis-St. Paul downtown areas
versus out west farther. Just as an educated rule of thumb.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so they use that empirical and then based on population centers
and types of businesses and the expected route to get there?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that kind of what their methodology is then?
Paul Oehme: Yeah. A lot of the analysis was heavily weighted toward the 212 connection…
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, that was going to be my next question. Does that assumes that
212’s is in there too?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep. That’s all I had, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff. Kate, question on a couple of the
proposed changes or a couple of the modifications in the staff report. Try to get back to my spot
here. The first one deals with the signs and the lighted signs. Did I understand you that the
ordinance, our current city ordinance doesn’t allow lighted signs towards residential.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: So under our ordinance there wouldn’t be lighted signs to the east across Galpin
towards the Stone Creek or to the north across the property line to the Trotters Ridge
development. Under our current ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
6
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And, but as I read this under Section G(7), it would prohibit, it would go
beyond what our current ordinance says and not allow them anywhere.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Even towards other industrial areas or down towards Lyman.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Where they wouldn’t be seen internally. So if you wanted to modify
that, just say.
Mayor Furlong: I mean our current ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Per city ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess that’s the question. If something’s not addressed within the
PUD standards in the ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: If it’s silent then you go back to the underlying ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. The other question was on the site lighting which was.
Kate Aanenson: That’d be number 5 on page 10 I believe.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, Section 8, Lighting. Is there site lighting shall be directed towards in the
interior of the individual lots. As I was reading the other preceding standards there, we already
have standards in there with regard to.
Kate Aanenson: It’s half foot at the property line.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me?
Kate Aanenson: The current city ordinance says a half foot at the property line. Half foot
candle. And it might be better to put something.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s number 4 there, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So you’ve kind of got, I’m not sure if there’s anything qualifying under
number 5.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I guess my question is, as I see this, if number 4, if somebody has a
building and they’ve got lights for security purposes on the side of that building, they already
have to be shielded and they have to be at a half candle lamination by the time they get to the
property line.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
7
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And number 5 here, could that be interpreted that the lights on the
buildings would not be allowed since they might be pointed away from the interior and we’d
have to have poles of lights around the property line?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That’s kind of how that reads.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So be directed towards the interior. That might be hard.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. I just wanted to make sure I was reading that correctly, Okay, thank
you. Any other questions for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: One other follow up. We talked a little bit before Kate. The
conservation easement on the dedication and the clarification for the permanent conservation
easement. Talk about, as it reads now and just clarify. If I understood you correctly, that,
because of the density transfer that we’re doing here, that there isn’t any, that essentially
becomes a permanent easement because of the density on the rest of the site?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, because by approving the site plan you’ve said that that’s an
outlot and in that outlot we’ll put restrictions regarding what you can do with that which is pretty
much nothing, you know trimming trees they’d have to verify with us so that’s the intent. It has
no building value on an outlot. You can’t build on an outlot.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And what would be the change if we were to add that word
permanent in there at all?
Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure if the City Attorney wanted. Adding the word permanent to the
conservation easement as opposed to just a conservation easement.
Roger Knutson: It’s fine to add it.
Kate Aanenson: If they were to remove it from the outlot status they’d have to come back before
this body and ask.
Roger Knutson: I mean it’s permanent anyway until you.
Councilman Lundquist: Until you change it.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Roger Knutson: Change it. As you say it’s permanent, you still can change it.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
8
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Mayor Furlong: On the dedication, just to follow up on your question. The difference is
whether the title is held by the city through dedication or whether it’s held by.
Kate Aanenson: Because sometimes people feel that might be an additional extraction or
compensation so it is something that we’d negotiated. Some people are comfortable giving it to
the city. Some people want to maintain that control, so the city’s not in there doing something.
So it’s something we generally negotiate with the developer. The goal is that it stay in perpetuity
as the trees.
Councilman Lundquist: Which we would have more control if we did a dedication to the city
versus a conservation easement.
Kate Aanenson: Could.
Councilman Peterson: …have to maintain it right?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s sometime is a problem too. Yeah, trees fall down or
whatever.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Good point.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, are they using that as a part of their impervious surface?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Todd Gerhardt: So if we took ownership of that, could they still get credit for that?
Kate Aanenson: We’ve done that before where we’ve taken the ownership of it.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this time for staff? Maybe some follow up. Mr.
Merriman, from an applicant standpoint, anything you’d like to add this evening?
Ben Merriman: Not at this point.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I don’t know, we did receive substantial public comment at
our last meeting. I certainly want to make sure we have an opportunity if people want to be
heard as well so I would allow and invite people to come and make public comments on this
matter. My request would be that we focus on the changes and the additional information that
we received tonight rather than going back and re-visiting other points but if anybody is
interested in providing the council with their comments I would certainly invite them forward
now. Please come forward and state your name and address.
LuAnn Sidney: Mayor Furlong, City Council, staff and applicant. My name is LuAnn Sidney. I
live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail. I’d like to make a few comments concerning Eden Trace’s
proposal. First I would like to thank staff and the applicant for all the effort that has gone into
this proposal and for being sensitive to the concerns of neighbors in making this a PUD. I agree
9
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
with the proposed revised conditions and amendments to the current staff report and I’d like to
emphasize a few additional points which I emailed this weekend. Condition 2, I’d like to see the
addition of a statement about tree preservation fencing being placed at least 2 feet beyond the
drip line, and that will help preserve some of the mature oaks that are in that area. And then
condition 36(k). I would like to add that condition to show the proposed contour lines, the
proposed contour lines for the berm between Outlot B and Lot 5. And I would like to have it
there just for the future to show people when they come to investigate the property what we’ve
come up with for a preliminary plat. And I’d also like to make sure that we make Outlot C a
permanent conservation easement because outlots are outlots and they can be changed and I
think the word permanent would serve us well and preserve those trees for the future. Thank you
again and especially I’d like to thank the applicant for your time, effort and patience of this
proposal. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, Ms. Sidney. Could you repeat your second request for my benefit.
LuAnn Sidney: Condition 36(k).
Councilman Labatt: Is that a new one?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
LuAnn Sidney: Yeah. Can’t help it. Show the proposed contour lines for the berm between
Outlot B and Lot 5. And that will provide some guidance for the future when that lot develops.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Anything problematic with either of those Kate?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Sarah Dale: Sarah Dale, 2487 Bridle Creek Trail. Our concern is that there is no berm required
between Outlot B and Building 5 and I’d like to see something to give us some protection for the
future for that building. It’s a distance but we still think we need a berm with trees. The
developer has said he has no problem with that and there is room for it there so we’d like to see
something required so that we do have that protection.
JoEllen Radermacher: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is JoEllen
Radermacher. I live at 2479 Bridle Creek Trail. Our home does back right up to the outlot,
building number 5, Outlot B there and I do concur with LuAnn and Sarah on our request to have
a berm. The wetland area. There’s no trees. It’s a grassy area. We would have very visible
views of this building. It not only would help protect us but it would also encourage the wildlife
that does live in our area that we’d like to see maintained also. We also, there was a previous
and unless I misunderstood there was a reference made to other buildings, business parks that are
built within residential areas and I think one of those Chanhassen Lakes. And we went and
measured those buildings. We thought they were more like around the 20 foot with parapet so
we’d like to have some consideration to 25 foot with parapet to be in conjunction with those
10
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
areas. And also the type of structure that was used with the color of the stone and the texturized.
We thought that that was very nice looking concept. Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Chris Butcher: Good evening. I’m Chris Butcher from 2407 Bridle Creek Trail and I too want
to thank the applicant and city staff for all the efforts in trying to make a nice transition between
the business park and our homes for us. I just want to point out that I am one of the four homes
that directly abuts the building, Lot number 6, and just want to make the statement that when we
moved into our home we knew that this property was going to be developed at some point. The
development wasn’t the surprise to us. The proposed or potential building size was shocking to
us so the fact that perhaps a 4 story building that spanned 4 lots, that was shocking to us. We
appreciate the effort that have been put forth to try and modify that for us. We’d still like
additional, a little bit more though. Little extra effort. Too, looking at the building heights and
what we’ll be looking at when we sit at our dinner tables each evening, and the fact that there
would be even a 2 story building out there. And then the setback. I know I talked about it in e-
mails to you a couple times about potential 150 foot setback and I’m not, I don’t, I haven’t heard
anything else about that but looking at the possibility that if it were to be stipulated now, that
where a berm with 150 foot setback, so when someone who does come in to put a building there,
that that is already stipulated so we can have the additional berming and buffering. So thank you
very much.
Joel Lehrke: Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road. I did ask staff this evening to bring the
preliminary materials that they have for one of the buildings. I see Kate did bring that. One of
the concerns I had that we talk about at the previous meeting was quality construction materials,
but we actually didn’t have a true definition of what quality construction materials would be and
I thought it would be a good idea this evening if you as the City Council could see what the first
idea was. I haven’t seen it myself so I’ll be seeing it for the first time too, if Kate would be
willing to lay it up here in front of the camera and just point a few things out about it. The other
comment I do have is transition. I’ve talked to a few of you again today representatives. We
won’t go in too much with the concept plan but I do know you have a concept plan but that’s
also why we have City Council. This was planned in 1991. It didn’t say where it was put in
stone. That’s why I think we have you there is to make determinations saying does this really
fit…forefathers were thinking out there. My opinion still on this is that it should have a better
transition on the north and on the east side of more of an office building than a warehouse type
thing. That the density is too high as the previous lady stated. These buildings are quite, quite
large and while we talk about an IOP, the only difference I really think between this PUD and
the IOP is these buildings maybe don’t have evaporators or such thing as that on them yet, which
is nice not to have. Don’t get me wrong, but we’re looking at some pretty massive building sites
for a transition. I think the building sites still could look better. I don’t think anything’s going to
happen tonight. I think you should think about it in the future that just putting huge warehouses
in and saying it’s not quite as bad isn’t really a correct statement. It is. So with that I do ask that
we do take a look and see what their idea of quality construction material is for the first building.
Thanks.
11
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Anybody else that would like to speak from a public comment standpoint? No?
Okay. Well thank you. We appreciate your comments this evening and those that we received
by phone and e-mail as well. I guess for staff here, Ms. Aanenson, some of the questions I think
indirectly was asked with regard to the 2 foot, beyond the drip line. Is that, as well for Mr.
Merriman. I mean is that a?
Kate Aanenson: The City Forester, before you can begin construction inspects to make sure all
fencing is up and is in the appropriate location so.
Mayor Furlong: So the appropriate location may be, I mean 2 feet. It may be at the drip line. It
may be more than 2 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Right, exactly. So.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With regard to the contours.
Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. I think when it comes back for final plat we can certainly show
that. And that would be (k). 36(k).
Mayor Furlong: And the conservation easement, permanent again?
Kate Aanenson: That’s fine.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then there was the issue brought up about the berm on
Outlot, between B and Lot 5.
Kate Aanenson: I think this question was asked a couple different ways. If you look at this plan,
this is a 100 foot setback so that’s this line right here so this building is already set back about
150 feet. So it’s set back quite a ways so if we were to push it back further, you know the goal is
here, there’s room in here. If we’d like to put a condition on there that when it comes back for
final plat we show some contours and how it would based on the current location, how that
would, similar to what we’re saying on the other ones. Show how that would work. But I’m not
sure pushing it forward, and I’m not sure if the intent is to get high berm that this one, because
you’re either setting back further or you’re moving it closer and doing a berm. It’s, so I’d
certainly add. The goal is to put additional trees and the developer’s already agreed to that.
Mayor Furlong: Between B and Outlot, and the building on 5?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do you want to comment on this?
Ben Merriman: Basically there’s only 16 feet to work with. We have a setback from the
wetlands and then if I’m correct it’s about another additional 16 feet? And in that 16 feet if we
had to do a berm, it would have to be a 3 to 1 and then we could undulate the berm as well to try
12
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
to, so it isn’t just a big line, but you’re only really going to be able to work with a 3 to 1 slope
within the 16 feet.
Kate Aanenson: …condition to that effect because we don’t know what the shape of that
building’s going to be so within that secondary setback, outside of the wetland buffer, that we
would work to put a berm in, in that 16 feet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Looking here there was the issue of the berming. This was I
think on Lot 6. 150 foot setback currently for Lot 6. There’s 100 foot buffer if I’m not mistaken
from the north property line. And there’s no additional setback. I think we talked last meeting
about, what the developer’s planning to do within that 100 foot buffer from a, I don’t know
terrace berming or some sort of undulated.
Ben Merriman: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so maybe understanding that a little bit better what they’re planning to do
but, and if I recall the issue was, and it was brought up, you know is there, is there anything
available there to go beyond the 100 foot without going into Outlot C and so I guess that was.
Ben Merriman: Basically there isn’t. I mean if we take another 50 feet and come south with that
property line 50 feet, then we have to take the equivalent amount of square footage into Outlot C
and it can be on either side, on Lot 5 or Lot 6 but we’d have to squeeze that dedicated area in by
the same amount of square footage.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the other question I saw was on the materials. Question about
materials being proposed.
Kate Aanenson: There is a project moving forward that will be going to the Planning
Commission assuming this gets a recommendation and they come back for final plat, that would
be one of the conditions. It’d be this building, Lot 4, which is the most interior backing up to
Chaska on the other side of the wetland. So this would be the face from the cul-de-sac which
would be, so this would be facing in. So there’d be a building in front of it. If you could zoom
in on that for one second. So there would be a building, maybe it’s better to show you on the
colored drawing. So there would be a building sitting in front. It’d be this building behind so
when you’d come in you’d have this elongated driveway going back. I’m sorry, now you can
zoom back out. So there is burnish block, split face rock on both sides. Articulated. It hasn’t
gone to Planning Commission. Staff is working on the staff report right now regarding intensity
of colors but it is a highly articulated building, similar to what we have in the Chan Business
Center. And I just want to add one other comment regarding the city did contemplate a land use
recommendation. It was revisited, the land use recommendation and that’s in the very beginning
of the staff report. There was a proposal brought before the city to look at a transition of medium
density, some office industrial. That was rejected by the neighborhood and actually pursued it
through the court system and so that’s why when we updated the comprehensive plan we did not
revisit the land use change. Because we got the indication the neighbors preferred the office
industrial land use.
13
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any follow-up questions from council or anything else that we
heard? Okay. Alright. Good information. At this point I’ll bring it back to the council for
discussion. Some of the additional information we received this evening. Where’d we like to
start? Councilman Peterson or Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright, I’ll take it I guess. I like the first one. I think this is a good
example of neighborhoods and developers getting together and working out their problems. I
think it came a long way from where it started on the Planning Commission 2 weeks ago to right
now. I tend to be very sympathetic with homeowners in these neighborhoods because they were
here first. You know you’re the one that has invested your families in your future in this city and
that’s why we are who we are and so you need to be protected and heard and I hope that you felt
like that happened. That you know this is going to, this is here in front of us and I hope you felt
like you were heard and that you could make the changes you needed so you can blend in with
this development and make it work for everybody. Some of the issues were, you know
understanding traffic volumes and what works best and did we tackle that issue and figure it out?
I say yes. That we did unturn most stones that we could to figure out entrances and right-
ins/right-outs and so I think we should be proud of ourselves for being able to do that. Tree
preservation. That’s a big thing in our city for us and did we do that? Did we try to do the best
we can to protect the natural assets we do have which are our trees and I would say yes again. I
think the developer did a good job in respecting that and in following through with that
commitment. And the last issue I think we had was just trying to protect neighbors from
unsightly views and you know that I still think is a work in progress on final plat to come back.
It can be tweaked more and I think that in the end we can all leave and feel good about what has
happened here tonight so I will support this.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Tom I’m over here.
Todd Gerhardt: They’re all interchangeable.
Mayor Furlong: They are. One of you go next.
Councilman Lundquist: I would echo what Councilwoman Tjornhom stated before. I think a
couple of the minor changes, the addition of condition 36(k) with the contour lines. Adding the
permanent conservation easement on Outlot C. Adding a condition to construct a berm within
the 16 foot wetland buffer on Lot 5 is a fine addition. The 150 foot setback on Lot 6, I think that
my opinion is, from what we’ve seen from the staff and the developer that the 100 foot that we
have, coupled with the way that they intend to build that berm as kind of having that against the
wall with the smaller building that we’re looking at here, will in effect give about the same, the
same thing that pushing it back 50 feet is going to probably sacrifice more of the natural and I
think the developer, we won’t know until we see the final I guess and we’ll never know what that
building looks like until then but I’m comfortable with that, with the way it is on that as the
developer’s talked about it. I think Mr. Mayor as you talked about the conditions on the signs in
the interior lighting, I would support the removal of those and just go with I think the ordinance
offers protection and doesn’t muddy the waters so much there as that so I would support the
14
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
removal of that. I forget the numbers and letters are on those two conditions. On the interior
lighting and the signage as well. Lighted signage so with that I would support the proposal as
well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Thanks Tom.
Mayor Furlong: I’m looking your way this time.
Councilman Labatt: I’ll save my one thing here for last but I guess this is a project where this
developer has developed in Chanhassen and has always done quality projects so we’re not
dealing with a company here that is going to just put up tin boxes. So I think that the neighbors
can feel rest assured that these buildings will be of quality looking buildings with nice features. I
guess I’m in agreement with everything that’s been mentioned by Councilwoman Tjornhom or
Lundquist as far as all the additions and amendments and deletions. I’m still torn and concerned
about the traffic and the traffic study and how can they predict where the work force, where the
people are going to be working in these buildings and occupying them. Are they going to come
from downtown? Are they going to come from Chaska? Victoria and…offices and how do you
predict that and using this ITE manual to figure out that most of your traffic is going to come
from the east. I just have a hard time looking at that and accepting that. If you’re going to come
from 212 and either come across Lyman or you’re going to proceed through the intersection at
Galpin and take a right in into your office for the morning, or you’re going to take a left onto
Stone Creek. Or take a right on Stone Creek and a left. Or right on Galpin and a left on Stone
Creek, so I’m not happy with that. But I’m going to accept it because that will be 4 to 1 if I
don’t so. Other than that, that’s about it. I’m not happy with the report but I’m going to have to
live with it.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: I would agree with all of my fellow council people. I think the additions
since last week and this week have made it a better project and we should move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. This is one of those projects where the process is, becomes as
important as the final result. I think in this particular case between the participation of residents
and other interested parties the cooperation of the applicant and staff from the very beginning
and trying to work out what’s best for most. I think this is an example where really the process
has worked. There is never going to be a perfect project when you have competing interests, and
here we do have competing interests. Even within some of the neighbors. Some of the residents.
And ultimately as I mentioned to a number of people that I spoke to prior to the meeting and I’ll
say it here publicly is while it’s our job as much as anything else is try to find balance and to do
it within the law within the ordinance and to make sure that we try to get the best project that we
can for the City of Chanhassen. That should be all of our goals and I know I, I’m comfortable
that our council up here seeks to do that. To balance the interest of the property owner with their
right to develop and those of the neighbors with their, what they have now. What they see now
and what they’re going to see and other interests in terms of safety and storm water issues,
15
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
drainage issues and such like that. I think we’ve done that. I think with regard, as Councilman
Lundquist mentioned, items that were added in the development plan, G(7) and H(5), I think our
ordinance provides sufficient protection. My concern is that with these two, when we’re talking
about sign lighting shall be directed interior. I can look at that and say one interpretation is that
all lighting has to be on the perimeter of the property line and focused in. I don’t think that’s
what anybody anticipates. You know prisons do that and that’s not what we’re looking for here.
But lighting on the side of the building for security purposes that’s properly shielded and with
low illumination at the property line. I think that meets objections that people are looking for
without perhaps causing some other problems so I appreciate Councilman Lundquist’s
supporting the elimination of those two. Again on details. The question with regard to the drip
line. I appreciate Ms. Sidney’s request there. I have full confidence in our forester that she’s
going to put that where it needs to be based upon the protection of the tree, and if that’s 2 feet, if
it’s 4 feet or 6 feet, I think that’s where it will be. The other ones with regard to contour lines,
conservation easement, I guess from what I’ve heard tonight coming into tonight I was leaning
towards the dedication of that outlot to the city. From what I’ve heard tonight for other reasons I
prefer to see that as an easement, a conservation easement with the title not coming to the City.
If that’s acceptable to the developer. And so I’m confident as Councilman Labatt said that the
developer’s going to come forward with good developments. We’ll have an opportunity to look
at all the materials in the site plans as they come forward as well, which will give us further input
into the process for all the neighbors and those most directly affected so I think we’ve got the
best development here. Keeping all interested parties, all factors considered. I think it’s going to
be an asset to the city and for that reason I will be supporting this this evening, as it sounds like
my fellow council members will too. We never get all the answers perhaps that we’re looking
for but I don’t think anybody can say that we haven’t asked the questions and in some cases
we’ve asked them 2 or 3 times and that’s what we can do. With that I think we can move
forward here. Steve.
Councilman Labatt: Well I just wanted to, for Kate. The maximum building height for
Buildings 5 and 6. Make sure we’re all clear on what.
Kate Aanenson: Two stories or 30 feet.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Which is down from what we were looking at 2 weeks ago.
Councilman Labatt: I just wanted to make that everybody knew that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion on this? If not, Councilman Lundquist you
want to take a stab at the motion you started last week. Two weeks ago.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate do you want these in 3 separate ones probably?
Kate Aanenson: That’s where there’s modification in some of those.
16
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, okay. I would move that City Council approve the ordinance
rezoning the property located within Chanhassen West Business Park from A2 to PUD
incorporating the development design standards as modified to eliminate, what were those two
again?
Mayor Furlong: Let me find them. I think it’s, going to be clear.
Councilman Lundquist: The interior lighting and.
Mayor Furlong: G(7) and H(5) would be removed from the staff report. Make sure the lighted
signs and the sight line issues, those were added subsequent to the last report.
Councilman Lundquist: So incorporating the design standards as modified with the elimination
of those two, based on the findings of fact attached to the report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approves the ordinance rezoning the property located within the Chanhassen West
Business Park from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD)
incorporating the development design standards contained within the staff report, modified
to delete items G(7) and H(5), and based upon the findings of fact attached to the report.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist: I’d move that the City Council approves preliminary plat for
Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell & Madson dated June 17, ’05 based
on the findings of fact attached to the report, subject to conditions 1 through 54 with the addition
of 36(k). To add the contour lines on Outlot B. No.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Outlot B. And modification of condition 54. 53. Dedicate a permanent
conservation easement for Outlot C and the addition of condition 55. That the developer shall
construct a berm within the 16 foot wetland buffer on Lot 5.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick point. I’m sorry, go ahead.
Kate Aanenson: You can’t be in the wetland buffer zone, just for clarification. It’s beyond now.
There’s another…
17
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Didn’t I say wetland. Oh, I meant to say the setback. The 16 foot
setback.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Outside the wetland buffer.
Mayor Furlong: Question, clarification Councilman Lundquist. For the condition right about
that 54, at our last meeting when we started working through this, I thought we took out
references to the property to the north. There were drainage issues. The issue here is, I don’t
want to, I’m not trying to exclude Lot 2 but I don’t want to exclude other lots along there as well.
Councilman Lundquist: You’re correct. Lots, in condition 54 should be modified to say
drainage issues along Lots 5, 6 and Outlot C.
Mayor Furlong: So that we cover all the.
Councilman Lundquist: That would cover all of the developments, or all of the lots in Trotters
Ridge. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Preliminary Plat for Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by
Schoell & Madson, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, based on the findings of fact attached to the
report and subject to the following conditions:
1.Applicant shall increase landscape plantings in the south and east property line bufferyards to
meet minimum requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final
approval.
2.Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities. Fencing shall
remain in place until construction is completed.
3.All trees shown as preserved on plans dated 6/17/05 shall be protected. Any trees damaged
or removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
4.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for
Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The
application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if
applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or
concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring.
18
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
5.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas
shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots)
shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
6.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation
(including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland
are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of
final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation (including
grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation letter of
credit.
7.The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates and meet NURP standards.
Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized
adequately for the proposed development.
8.Stable emergency overflows shall be provided for the proposed pond on site. The emergency
overflows shall be clearly labeled on the plan and a detail is needed. The emergency
overflows may be stabilized with a turf re-enforcement mat or fabric and riprap.
9.Notes on the plan describing timing of temporary stabilization with Type 1 mulch and seed
or erosion control blanket and seed shall be included. The notes shall include timing of
stabilization as well as the rate of mulch application (2 tons per acre, disc anchored).
10.All riprap/fabric at the flared end section shall be installed within 24 hours of flared end
section installation.
11.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
12.Erosion control blanket shall be specified in the swale from the flared end section to the
wetland along the west boundary of the site. The blanket specified shall adequately protect
19
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
the area from designed velocity and depth of flow. The blanket and seed in the swale shall
be installed within 5 days of culvert installation. Erosion control blanket is recommended for
the pond slopes from around 952 to 942 contours. All blanket on the plan shall be shown as
a shaded area.
13.Temporary sediment basins shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope areas. The areas of
temporary sediment basins shall be labeled on the plan. A temporary outlet (e.g., a
perforated riser and rock cone) shall be provided for the pond; details should be provided.
Temporary basins shall be constructed in the area of the proposed permanent storm water
pond, the southeast corner of the site prior to discharging to the culvert under Galpin
Boulevard, and possibly in the northwest area of the site to handle water runon from the
north prior to discharge to the wetland.
14.Any and all area inlets or drop inlets in paved areas shall be protected with alternate
controls/Wimco details. The engineer shall research and provide alternate designs for
Wimco-type inlet controls to fit the various types of inlets.
15.Additional inlet controls shall be provided for adjacent inlets on Galpin Boulevard and Street
A.
16.Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the
wetland.
17.Type 1 and Type 2 silt fence locations shall be specified on the plan. Type 2 silt fence shall
be installed around all wetland areas and in the southeast corner of the site to protect the
culvert under Galpin Boulevard. The silt fence shall be extended along the south side to
close the gap in the silt fence.
18.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
19.The estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is
$413,661.
20.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit),
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
21.In lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction, full park fees shall be collected at the
rate in force at the time of final plat for the proposed Chanhassen West Business Park. At
current rates, the park fee would total $359,500 (35.95 x $10,000 per acre).
22.A demolition permit must be obtained before beginning demolition of any existing structures.
20
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
23.Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
24.Provide a water service for Lot 6.
25.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
26.Fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
27.The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed street name
to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
28.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
29.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire code Section 503.2.3.
30.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections when construction of a new
roadway allows passage be vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota fire code Section 501.4.
31.Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that
time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including storm water ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows,
access routes for maintenance, over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, and
buffer areas used as PVC. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
32.The interior lot storm sewer will require private easements to be dedicated where the sewer
crosses from one lot to another.
33.Private utility easements are required for the sanitary sewer and water lines that serve Lot 4
but go through Lot 5.
34.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots.
The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the
time of building permit issuance.
21
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
35.On the site plan:
a.Revise the cul-de-sac pavement radius to 48 feet.
b.Revise the parking driveway aisle from 24 feet to 26 feet wide.
c.Revise the public street width from 32 feet to 36 feet wide.
d.Increase the full access width off Galpin Boulevard to 44 feet and create three
lane access.
e.Shift Lots 1 and 8 easterly access further toward the west and realign the across
each other.
f.Show at least one, 6-foot wide, side walk along the public street.
g.Show the access off Galpin Boulevard turning curb radius.
h.Realign lot 5 access perpendicular to the shared driveway.
i.Show street lights.
j.Show handicap parks and ramps.
36.On the grading plan:
a.Extend silt fence type between the storm pond and Outlot A. Silt fence Type II
must be used adjacent to wetlands and storm pond.
b.Revise contour lines to match 3:1 maximum slope and tie the proposed contour
lines with the existing contours for Lots 4, 5, south of Lot 2 and northeast of Lot
1.
c.Show the proposed contour lines for Lot 6.
d.Show all retaining walls top and bottom elevations.
e.Show all emergency overflows (EOF). The EOF must be 1.5' lower than the
adjacent lowest floor.
f.Revise Lot 6 parking slope to 0.7% minimum.
g.Add a note to remove any existing structure and access off Galpin Boulevard and
all disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or
sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
h.Show 75-foot minimum construction rock entrance.
i.No retaining walls structure is allowed within public street and/or public utility
easements, revise accordingly.
j.Show 20-foot utility easement for the storm sewer between Lots 2 and 3
k.Show contour lines for the berm on Outlot B.
37.On the utility plans:
a.Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements.
b.Show the proposed sanitary and storm sewer stubs inverts.
c.Add storm sewer schedule.
d.Public storm sewer pipe type must be RCP and 15-inch minimum diameter.
e.The last street accessible storm manhole (STMH#2) must be built with a sump.
f.Revise sanitary sewer pipe from DIP to PVC-C900.
g.On the utility profile show all sewer and pipe crossings.
h.Minimum vertical separation must be 18 inches between watermain and sewer.
i.Call out watermain fittings
22
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
38.Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered Civil Engineer in
the state of Minnesota with an approved safety fence on top of it. Also, it will require a
building permit from the Building Department.
39.Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 2109, 2110 2204, 3104, 3109,
5201, 5205, 5214 and 5215.
40.Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota
must sign all plans.
41.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
42.Cross-access easements for the shared driveway accesses must be obtained and recorded
against the lots for each of the entrance drives.
43.Any off-site grading will require easements from the appropriate property owner.
44.Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial
security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the
improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all
public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit
issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but
not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County,
MnDOT, etc.
45.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The
applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
46.All private streets are required to have 24-foot wide paved streets from back-of-curb to back-
of-curb, be built to a 7-ton design and contained within a 40-foot wide private easement. At
the completion of the project, the developer will be required to submit inspection/soil reports
certifying that the private streets were built to a 7-ton design.
47.Six-foot wide sidewalks are required.
48.All of the proposed building pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above the
HWL of the adjacent ponds.
23
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
49.Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City’s Building Department.
50.Comply with Carver County memo dated June 28, 2005 and revise the plans accordingly.
51.Revise plan sheet size to 24 x 36 using scale 50.
52.The developer shall dedicate a permanent conservation easement over Outlot C.”
53. The applicant shall work with staff to resolve any drainage issues along Lots 5, 6 and Outlot
C.
54. The developer shall construct a berm within the 16 foot setback outside the wetland buffer
zone on Lot 5.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist: Move the Chanhassen City Council approve the Wetland Alteration
Permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen
dated June 17, ’05, subject to conditions 1 through 10.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? We’ll give that one to Councilwoman
Tjornhom. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development,
plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, subject to the following
conditions:
1.A no loss determination shall be completed for Basin F 31-34.
2.Exemption requests shall be completed for Basins F 51-80 N, Basin F 91-97 and Wetland A.
3.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). A Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application Form for
Water/Wetland Projects (Parts I and II) shall be submitted for the proposed project. The
application shall include sequencing discussions and sequencing flexibility requests, if
applicable. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to or
concurrent with final plat approval and prior to wetland impacts occurring.
4.A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species,
particularly purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of
recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
24
City Council Meeting – August 22, 2005
5.Several corrections must be made to the Wetland Mitigation Plan (sheet 10 of 13):
a.Wetland A is shown as an impact area. Upon finalization of exemption
paperwork, mitigation will not be required for this wetland;
b. Wetland C (Basin F 87-90) is 0.05 acres in area; and
c.Wetland D (Basin F 81-86) is 0.09 acres in area.
6.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas
shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures (including parking lots)
shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
7.The applicant shall submit a letter of credit equal to 110% of the cost of the wetland creation
(including grading and seeding) to ensure the design standards for the replacement wetland
are met. The letter of credit shall be effective for no less than five years from the date of
final plat approval. The applicant shall submit a cost estimate for wetland creation
(including grading and seeding) so the City can calculate the amount of the wetland creation
letter of credit.
8.Drainage and utility easements a minimum of 20 feet in width shall be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water
ponds.
9.Silt fence shall be installed around Outlot A along the east side between the pond the
wetland.
10.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II construction permit),
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate your help in the process. Let’s move on now
to our next item.
MINNEWASHTA CREEK HILL, 6560 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, ROBERT RICK
(FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TIM & MARY COLLERAN), PLANNING CASE 05-15;
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This request is located on Minnewashta Parkway just south of
Highway 7. It’s a request to divide one lot into 3 single family homes. The Planning
nd
Commission held a public hearing on this item on August 22 and recommended 6 to 1
regarding the proposed development. The one no vote regarded consideration of the historic
value of the home. Staff did include some pictures regarding that and did some research on that
25