CC Minutes 8-28-06
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Resolution #2006-63: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approves the resolution adopting the Second Generation Surface
Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to O.
BOULDER COVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM (RLM).
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN FOR A ONE. TWO AND
THREE UNIT TOWN HOME COMMUNITY. LOCATED ON PROPERTY NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 7. EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST 62NU STREET.
APPLICANT ROGER DERRICK. COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER COVE.
LLC.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Cara Otto
Dan French
Roger Derrick
Marc Hoffmann
Brenda Hugo
J amee Tuttle
Julia Gagnon
Todd Wagner
Gwen & Wade Navratil
Paul Steffens
Otto Associates
Coldwell Banker Burnet
Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC
6195 Strawberry Lane
26110 Oak Leaf Trail
26245 Oak Leaf Trail
26125 Oak Leaf Trail
26145 Oak Leaf Trail
3751 West 62nd Street
26250 Oak Leaf Trail
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Good evening Honorable Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council. Just
going over the location of the site, it is located north of Highway 7, west of Church Road and
south of 62nd Street. It is also south of the city of Shorewood. This project contains multiple
applications. The first one being the rezoning of the property from Residential Single Family to
Residential Low Medium Density. This is the primary decision that the City Council has to
make. If the rezoning is approved, you can carryon with the subdivision and site plan request.
If you choose to deny the rezoning, the rest of the application is moot since the product the
applicant is proposing will not meet the residential single family district requirements. With that
said, the comprehensive plan guides this site for residential low density, which permits 1.2 to 4
units per acre. The applicant is requesting to rezone it to Residential Low Medium Density, and
with this specific project, this specific request, the density on the site is 2.8 units per acre. That's
the gross density, and 3.32 units per acre. That would be the net density after removing the street
or the right-of-way. They were still under the low density which is maximum of 4 units per acre.
Staff views this site as a classic case of a transition zone. It provides single family units,
duplexes next to the single family units that you have to the north of the site, and I think this will
show it better. Single family and duplexes along here. Wherever he has a buffer, we've
permitted the three plexes and then along Highway 7 you have more three plexes. There were
some questions raised regarding the hard surface coverage on this site. If it was rezoned to
9
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
RLM, this district allows for higher numbers, higher percentages of hard surface coverage
compared to our residential single family district that permits a maximum hard surface coverage
of 25%. What we did is we took each individual parcel and assumed the largest possible unit
that you can have on each of the single family, the duplexes, with exception of the middle unit of
the three plexes. Those, the size of those units is set and you can't really enlarge them or make
them any smaller than what you see on the plan here. With that assumption we also added a 20
foot wide driveway, a sidewalk to the front door of each unit, and a patio. So worst case scenario
for the entire project is 24.9%, which is comparable to a single family development as far as hard
surface coverage. The next request before the City Council is the subdivision. All of the lots in
this district meet the minimum requirements of area width and depth of the city code. All right-
of-way is being dedicated on the plat. Additional right-of-way for 62nd Street is also being
dedicated. Drainage and utility easements are also part of this application. There are 2 variances
attached to this subdivision. The first one being the length of the cul-de-sac and the second deals
with the building of a private street. Our ordinance requires any 2 homes that share a driveway
to go through the subdivision variance process. Both of those variances deal with safety issues
and our City Engineer Paul Oehme will be addressing those two issues later. As well as some
additional traffic and drainage issues. The third request deals with a site plan, and all three.. . are
required by city code to go through the site plan procedure. The applicant is proposing to utilize
Hardie board as one of the materials on the exterior as well as a variation of different types of
stone. In either case, whether it's the Hardie board or the stone, these elements would continue
along the entire fac;ade rather than just be cut off at a, below a window or half way on an
elevation. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the
staff report and at this point if I may, I would like to turn it over to Paul Oehme to address some
issues dealing with drainage and traffic.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This application was received by staff I
think back in February of this year. When we received it we did have some concerns about
traffic and the drainage, and since then we've been working with the developer and their
engineers and we actually, the city staff, city did hire another outside engineering firm to
evaluate the ground water issues and drainage off the site too so, since then we've been working
through these issues and we think we've come up with a reasonable design that we think can
benefit some of the existing property owners in this area as well. I'd first like to touch on
drainage for the development. That was one of the biggest concerns that was raised at the public
hearing at the Planning Commission. This drawing here of the development shows existing
drainage patterns. The yellow areas, El and E2 currently drain to the north to the city of
Shorewood residents. The green area currently drains west, and this is again based on existing
topography and the red or pink area drains south of the Highway 5 ditch and to the MnDot right-
of-way. With the proposed development, this is the new drainage pattern. We have decreased
the amount of drainage area to the north...which is now shown in yellow. The area now in blue
is currently will be draining to the existing, to a proposed pond on the development. Treated and
in the area in pink again is in the MnDot right-of-way which really hasn't changed and the green
still flows to the west, and that mainly is captured again by the ditch. So where we are, we have
considered the existing property owners adjacent to the development. The, can I have the map or
the drawing? One of the biggest concerns for, especially the property owners to the north and to
10
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
the west was the ground water. Staff and the engineering team have come up with several
improvements that we think will help this current situation. The proposed improvements include
a French drain which is basically a drain tile wrapped in rock to help capture some existing
ground water in this area. This drain tile, or this French drain is proposed along the west
property line here... into the existing MnDot ditch out here. The property owners on the west,
the existing property owners on the west would have the opportunity to tie into that drain with
their sump pumps and we understand that there is a, there's a significant amount of sump pump
discharge on these properties and over. . . would have the opportunity to tie into those which
would be a city improvement or city infrastructure. To the north, there will be storm water catch
basins on the back yards here, and we are, have talked to the developer about making those more
of a drain tile situation as well to capture, try to capture some more drain, ground water in this
area. Make it perforated and try to capture as much drainage, ground water as possible in the
back yards here. Again all the impervious surface and all the development areas are, as much as
possible, will be treated in the proposed pond. The, let's see. One of the issues that was raised at
the Planning Commission public hearing was the current drainage south of Highway 5. We feel
that, staff feels that it's somewhat out of the scope of this project. We understand that there is an
existing drainage issue with that development just south of there. In the staff report we have
included the report from an engineering firm that gives 4 improvement opportunities.
Improvement options that staff is looking at incorporating into the 2007 CIP to address those
issues so we are looking and trying to make those improvements at this time as well. I'd like to
move onto traffic. Some of the issues regarding this development. Now the main issue that staff
has heard from the property owners was access to the site. Their request has been to include
another access onto Highway 7. Currently there is 2 access points. Maybe I can show you on
this drawing here. Currently 2 access points. One at the westerly part of the development and
one on the center part of the proposed development. There are 2 existing driveways that
currently access 7. As Sharmeen had indicated, we are trying to incorporate those access, or
eliminate those access points off of 7 with existing ones, for existing homes and bring those into
the development. I did hand out a current, an email that MnDot recently sent to us regarding
access and potential, request for additional access off of 7 by some of the property owners. We
have considered those requests. MnDot is the jurisdiction, jurisdictional party of Highway 7 so
they have the last say on what kind of access is provided for the development. Currently
Highway 7 is a high priority regional corridor and for example a right-in/right-out access, quarter
mile spacing would be required. And for full access MnDot requires a half mile spacing. This
exhibit shows current access points. This is the proposed development area right now. A
couple, this is where the existing property, the houses are currently located. For a quarter mile
spacing it really doesn't meet MnDot's requirements. Church Road, between Church Road and in
Shorewood Drive would be less than a quarter mile spacing that would be required so right-
in/right-out would not work, nor would a full access. Other developments that council has
approved in the past, which are just west of here. Boyer I believe is one and Hidden Creek
Meadows. We have eliminated access points along 7 as MnDot has required us to. So enough
with the access point on 7. The access off of 62 that is currently proposed, staff has reviewed
this access point currently shown here. We feel that this is the best access and sight line distance
location for this type of development. We feel that it's good sight lines both north and west to
accommodate the existing and proposed traffic in this area. One other item that was discussed
was cut through traffic to the north through Shorewood. Again referring back to this overall
map. The concern was that the proposed development, traffic would head into Shorewood off of
11
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Strawberry Lane and potentially access off of Shorewood Oaks Drive to gain access off of, onto
7. Staff does not feel like that's a logical route because of the road there is a little bit narrow. It's
circuitous. It's actually a longer route to take than off of 62 and Church Road. So we feel that
that's the best access. We have been talking, staff has been talking with MnDot about gaining
the traffic signal at this intersection as well. We just had a recent conversation with them. Again
it does not currently meet MnDot's warrants for a signal but the more traffic at that intersection,
the more likelihood that in the future that intersection will meet warrants for a signal, so we are
working with MnDot and trying to encourage them, making sure that they look at this
intersection for future signals. The, staff did include traffic analysis to, from the townhouse
development to a single family development too and we did not find any significant amount of
traffic increases based upon the these two transportation engineering trip generation manual that
is currently the engineering standard for this type of destinations and...
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, when was the traffic study done? For the piece where you
collected, you guys collected actual information?
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Traffic piece or you used the standards book?
Paul Oehme: Just the standards book, and that's based upon national averages for townhome
type of units versus, and single family. Those are the numbers that we plugged into this analysis.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Paul Oehme: At this time if you have any questions about those issues or any other questions, I'd
be more than willing to try to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist, you jumped
ahead. Okay. Councilwoman Tjomhom, any questions?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: No.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I have a couple. Paul, first with regard to traffic and maybe we can show the
colored map for the site plan, if we have that close by. Is that alignment of the road
perpendicular to West 62nd and in line with Strawberry or is it offset?
Paul Oehme: It's offset from Strawberry Lane. We wanted to try to gain as much sight distance
along Strawberry and 62nd as possible. And also we wanted to try to keep the road a little bit
away from existing properties here so it's not more or less a through street as well. It's part of a
stop condition here.
12
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I guess that's my question. Typically where we see roads line up perpendicular
and in line with other roads. So that one looks like it's coming in at an angle, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, it's coming in at, like at an angle. It's not coming in in line with Strawberry
nor is it coming in line with 62nd Street. But we feel that that location gains as much sight
distance as possible for both 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With regard to the storm pond, and one of the questions raised,
I think was, and you addressed it Ms. AI-Jaff is impervious surface coverage and differences in
what was calculated tonight. Saw that information but when I was, in terms of sizing of the
storm pond here, is that sized based upon the allowable impervious surface coverage for the
zoning or is it based upon the estimated impervious surface of this site plan? Because the zoning
is higher allowable within the zoning is higher than what they're showing here, correct?
Paul Oehme: Actually the applicant's engineer can clarify that issue.
Cara Otto: Good evening. I'm Cara Schwann Otto with Otto Associates. What we originally
had was a house pad that was 80 feet deep by 40 wide. The buildings are actually quite smaller.
These are close to the 40 wide but more the 60 to 65 feet deep, so we were taking a larger
percentage of impervious to include, and because of some of the drainage issues and history that
we've found out since we started the project, we never really went back and recalculated that
based on the buildings they're proposing, just because it would be a conservation measure to
leave that. So to answer your question, the pond would be a conservative or larger size than
what is currently being proposed on the site plan. And the site plan is holding them to some
standards as far as what they need to do so, it is being covered in the larger pond.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my question, and that's, I appreciate that. What is allowed within
impervious coverage within the zoning? And you said, as I saw in the staff report, it's about 25%
or just under that's being calculated.
Cara Otto: With the proposed site.
Mayor Furlong: I exaggerated at 25.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: With the proposed plan it is 24.9. However, within this district, depending
upon whether it's a single, a duplex or a three plex, those numbers could potentially go up. The
percentages.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Percentage allowed or the actual?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Percentage allowed could potentially go up. However, the site plan that the
applicant is proposing is going to keep them under 25%.
13
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: And I think that's a safety check or balance there, and I guess I'm sorry Ms.
Otto, based upon your calculations, you said the pond will cover more than what's currently here,
which is the 24.9.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: About what impervious surface coverage would the pond cover?
Cara Otto: Well if you give me a calculator, maybe I can. I don't know that off hand but.. .an
idea.
Mayor Furlong: That'd be fine. That'd be fine. And while she's doing that, I guess, let me see if
I have anything else at this point. Otherwise we'll keep moving on. The variance request is one
of a cul-de-sac longer than ordinance allows.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the reason for that is, because there's no access to Highway 7, is that
correct? It's a restriction being placed on the property?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: By the City and by MnDot.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Correct, and we looked at all the different options. Property to the north is
completely developed so we have no access to the road to the north of the subject site. Access is
limited off of Highway 7 based upon MnDot's requirements. We really don't have any other
choice.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the private street variance, that, any private
street requires a variance, is that correct?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: And it was a request from the property owners. We received a call from her.
From the homeowner requesting that we talk to the developer and see if we can close off their
access onto Highway 7 and have them share a driveway or a private street. We contacted the
developer and they agreed to do so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And this plan, including the private street with the cul-de-sac takes 4
private accesses off Highway 7 right now? Is that right? Or 3.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: That's correct. Four. We're closing off 4 driveways off of7.
14
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. That's all the questions I have. How'd the calculator work?
Cara Otto: Well you put me on the spot but generally, it's about, what my plan tells us is about
20% more than what they're building. That probably equates to somewhere around 30, low 30's
percent for cumulative. So but the difference sort of between the building pads shown and the
buildings they're proposing is about a 20% decrease.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, and within the zoning district you said it varied by type of
structure. Number of units per structure.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And they range from 30 to 40?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: From 30 to, 34 single. 35 for a duplex and 50% for the three plex. The
middle, yes.
Mayor Furlong: The middle unit, okay. Okay. That's it. Any other questions at this time?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I had a thought. You showed, we saw a rendering of the building.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: That building is going to be the three plex, the whole thing? Just
different modifications of it?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: That's correct. As well as, so basically what we're looking at is a difference
in the type of material that is used. The stone that is used on these garages versus this area. Staff
is also recommending that they add a pitched element above the roof leading to each entryway as
a way of defining the entrances into each one of those units. They're also using the Hardie
board, and there is a variation. I was talking to the applicant requesting more variation in the
colors and materials and this is what they came up with.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Do you think there's a need for, is there any visitor parking allotted?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: No. Each unit, this maintains a setback of 16, 30 feet and each driveway is
20 feet. They also have a public street. 60 foot right-of-way so there is plenty of parking in each
driveway. Very similar to a single family development. There's plenty of parking on the street
as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point for staff? If not, I know the applicant
is here. If there's anything you'd like to address to the council.
Roger Derrick: Good evening. My name is Roger Derrick. I'm representing Cottage
Homesteads tonight for the Boulder Cove development. I think the staff has really covered just
about everything I wanted to say except that, we've been building one level townhomes
15
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
throughout the state for the past 16 years and have built many developments. This one we're
really looking forward to because in working with Sharmeen and the planning department, we
think that we've got a beautiful building. We've never built this particular one before but it's got
the cement board. Doesn't have any vinyl. It's got stone. We're going to vary the colors of the
cement board and the stone very subtly. It's got a very high pitched roof. Some gables.
Concrete driveways. It's going to be very nice. And of course it's a cul-de-sac which you know
adds to the flavor I think of the neighborhood. And it's one level. I know that just in thinking
about townhouse developments, you know their thoughts have gone through people's minds.
We've got enough townhouse developments. We don't need any more, but this one being one
level, it really caters to the empty nester. The senior and what we found in the past, and in more
than 80% of everything we build is one level so we're really familiar with it. And almost
everybody comes from a very small area around the development because there are people that
want to sell the big house. They want a different lifestyle. They want to get rid of the stairs and
the bedrooms they're not using and get some usable space so, what happens is, they're going to
get people from the area. They're going to sell their single family house and they're going to
move to a maintenance free, one level development. We're excited about it and anxious to start.
Can I answer any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Questions. I guess just one for point of clarification. The materials and design
that you're showing here, I know our ordinance requires that for the three plexes, if I'm correct,
but it's your plan to use that for the duplexes and the single.
Roger Derrick: Oh yes, everything.
Mayor Furlong: So it will be consistent with what we've seen here this evening?
Roger Derrick: That's right, and the floorplans, we have two basic floorplans, and those will be
available in the single, twin or the triple. The only difference of course the middle unit of the
triple will definitely have the smaller plan because that's the only thing that fits there but the
other ones, you can either use either one. But the outside will be the same as what you've seen in
the rendering and will vary the materials with each building and the colors subtly so that when
you drive down the street, it's not going to be the same building repeated. In fact, not only will
that part be different but because you have the 1,2 and 3, the masking is different too. And that's
something you don't notice consciously but subconsciously you do when you're driving down the
street.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Alright. We did have a public hearing at the Planning
Commission. I do appreciate staffs update of the report addressing the many questions that were
raised at the Planning Commission also. And then preparing responses to those. It was easier to
read in a summarized form like that with the details. Again, we did have a public hearing at the
Planning Commission. And there may be some people though that based upon either staffs
responses to questions raised or, I don't know that there were material changes between Planning
Commission and coming to the council in the plan but there was some additional information
prepared and included in the staff report based upon the Planning Commission public comments
so, if there's, if there are some limited comments by the public and like to make sure the council
is aware of before we start discussing it ourselves, I would certainly invite those parties to come
16
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
forward at this time. We'd like to keep the conversations again limited. We don't repeat at the
Planning Commission meetings. We've got copies of those comments and a number of residents
have sent letters and emails and made phone calls and stuff as well, but certainly invite people to
come forward at this time and provide comments as well.
Marcus Hoffmann: Thank you Mayor Furlong and members of the council. My name is Marcus
Hoffmann. I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane in Shorewood. I'd like to take this opportunity to
thank the council for allowing me to speak on behalf of my constituents and address real issues
that will have an adverse effect on our community as a result of the proposed Boulder Cove
development. Our platform is not that of anti development but more along the lines of cautious
development. We are appreciative to the Planning Commission for their efforts in addressing a
couple of our most serious concerns, mainly drainage and traffic. Having listened to the
proposal on August 1st, there continues to be a myriad of great concerns relating to this
development that need to be addressed. Our goal is to make you aware of these concerns to slow
the process enough that unnecessary losses are avoided and good compromises are made. In an
economy where dollars are tight and appropriations are limited, it is easy to be overly pro
development to bring a new tax base to supplement cash shortfalls. Our greatest concern
continues to be that of drainage. Our primary goal is to have the developer make some
concessions and take a more conservative approach to coming up with a suitable remedy. Rather
than trying to shoehorn too many units into a moderate parcel of land, ponding on the north end
of the development should alleviate unnecessary flooding to their neighbors in the Shorewood
Oaks development. This ponding would also reduce the stress of the water flow moving to the
sole drainage pond as set forth in the current site plan. The implementation of our proposal,
proposed ponding could most likely be done without the loss of any units by the developer.
Current plans for drainage have been addressed by several expert engineers but only minimal
standards are being... Two developers of Chanhassen addressed the drainage problems at the
Planning Commission meeting only to be overlooked and ignored. Errors made by engineers
have propagated flooding to the neighboring development south of Highway 7 at Minnewashta
Landings. Errors which have caused the flooding out of a beach on Lake Minnewashta 3 times
in the previous 8 years. The current drainage plans for this developer and his expert engineers
will only cause serious hardship to stress drains currently located beneath Highway 7. Current
drainage plans are also accounting for a clay liner to the sole drainage pond. Given the minimum
guidelines being met, this leaves the door open to additional flooding to newly constructed
townhomes and more importantly existing homes that have been part of the community for over
40 years. Our next concern is that of traffic. We are requesting that an accurate traffic analysis
be conducted after the school year commences. Minnewashta Elementary School utilizes West
62nd and Strawberry Lane as it's primary route for school staff and more importantly bus traffic.
.. . substantiations could not possibly account for the additional stress on our local roads. The
current TDI report, which is in the staff report, only accounts for neighborhood hypothetical's
and not actual traffic counts. The developer is proposing this town home community be
predominantly senior living. However there will be no covenants to back up their intent. The
TDI report accounts for senior citizen traffic, which is not entirely accurate. The developer is
creating a land locked situation by giving concessions to the existing access points. I spoke
directly with the MnDot supervisor representing the Highway 7 corridor. Their intent is to
alleviate traffic by reducing access points along this route. However they cannot legally deny
access to any existing driveways. MnDot can also only comment on an approved proposal
17
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
submitted to them. At no point have they reviewed a building plan that incorporated the use of a
single access point on Highway 7. We would be more comfortable with their site plan if it
incorporated at minimum a right-in only entrance off Highway 7. This would reduce traffic
contributable to this development on our local, substandard roads by almost half. Let it be
known that it is the developer's intent to use their current access points to accommodate all of the
heavy equipment needed to bring the site to grade. Currently Church Road, West 62nd and
Strawberry Lane have weight restrictions that would not allow access to the development for this
purpose. Our community is very concerned about future assessments to the homeowners for
road upgrades as a direct result of the additional traffic. Again we are reasonable people with
reasonable concerns. We are asking the City Council members to take our concerns to heart and
take some time in considering development because once the development begins, it is
permanent. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sir.
Wade Navratil: Mayor Furlong, councilmen. My name is Wade Navratil. I live on 3751 West
62nd Street. The only address on West 62nd adjacent to this development and it lines up to about
2/3 of my property. If this was being developed as residential single family, I'd be here anyway
to address to you the drainage issue that is out there. There currently is a drainage pipe that is
running into the Highway 7 road ditch and it percolates up. So if this drainage plan is consistent
to hopefully alleviate that, that ditch will have to be excavated in order for that to happen
because we're there talking about draining the pond to. That pond drain will be higher than the
existing drain pipe, and as we all know water takes the path of least resistance so it will be
coming back towards me, up a drain pipe that has been there for 40 plus years. No one has been
out even to evaluate that drain pipe that is out there. And we have brought that up to staff before.
And to address the traffic, since I'm the only one that lives on West 62nd, next to that
development, it is very tough. It is a substandard road. Especially with school traffic. Number
two, Shorewood Oaks is a cut through. I use it myself. No matter what the computers say or
what people say about it being a longer distance or not. By the light being installed at
Smithtown Road, Highway 7 backs all the way up. I can hit Shorewood Oaks. I can go around.
I can be in my driveway inside of a minute as opposed to waiting in traffic for 5. So it is a very
good cut through. So it will increase the traffic by Marcus going on Strawberry. It will increase
the traffic on the school thoroughfare, and this development is inbetween two highly used city
parks. Cathcart and Freeman. And right up the road, up Strawberry at Minnewashta which is a
grade school. ... that these are in there, it'd be very easy for single family to move in there, and it
would be great for young children because across the way you have a park. Across the other
way you have another park and they're both highly used Little League fields. And additionally,
in the 2020 plan to put the medium nomenclature on this development, I believe there has to be a
barrier of some sort of road, park or something in there. This development is surrounded by
single family everywhere. There's no townhouse around there without a barrier. And the only
barrier there is is a single road of cedar trees. There is no other park. There's no road. There's
nothing dividing it from the Shorewood residents as well as the Chan residents. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Quick question sir. A barrier? Help me understand.
Wade Navratil: No, a natural barrier, buffer zone.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: A buffer zone, okay. Okay. No, Ijust wanted to clarify that I was
understanding your point. Thank you. Okay.
Todd Wagner: Mayor, council. Thanks for a little bit oftime this evening. My name's Todd
Wagner. I live at 26145 Oak Leaf Trail in Shorewood. The key point I'd like to make, and it's
one that's easily lost in the discussion is the initial point that Sharmeen said that she's asking to
approve which is the initial rezoning of this property from Residential Single Family to a higher
density zoning. I sent a letter to I think all of you, or at least the Mayor and Sharmeen back in
March with that as my key point and question is to why does this property need to be rezoned.
Here I am sitting 4 months later and I still don't have an answer on why this property has to be
rezoned. Other than the fact that you had one developer come in with a very specific plan that
has many, many hours of engineering to deal with the stresses caused by that plan without
consideration of the fact that there's been a lot of other developers that have come in with similar
parcels nearby and have successfully and profitably put in single family homes. I think you
might find if you consider a single family development under the existing zoning, that a lot of the
stresses and issues that the engineers and Planning Commission have had to deal with become
less. Become less serious. So I think the point was made by Marcus that rushing to develop a
good plan that increases your tax base and helps out a developer, I think you've got to take a little
bit more time to think about are there other options for how you can develop this property. I'm
not against it being developed, but I think it could be developed very successfully as single
family homes just as all the surrounding areas are. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Appreciate those. ... no I want to try to address these
questions so that's fine.
Cara Otto: Okay. Cara Otto again, Otto Associates. A couple of the items that I just did want
to mention regarding the drainage. One was the inclusion of a clay liner was mentioned. We did
look at that through staff and both the geotechnical engineer for the city that they had and also
the one that the consultants had did say that that had very little effect so we were not including
that because really it is clay out there right now so in effect we're doing just using the soil that is
out there. So that is not worsening any condition that is out there, so that was just a comment
that I wanted to make. The other thing I wanted to mention is MnDot does require a drainage
permit because of the drainage going into the county 7, or Highway 7 ditch. That has been
approved by the MnDot hydrologist. I think that's an important point based on the fact that they
do look at a lot of regional, the regional area. Finally I did want to mention, as far as stresses the
plan, whether really the stresses of this plan have nothing to do with the density. Whether they
come in with any sort of development, the drainage issues are an existing drainage problem that
is out there and we will have in effect the same sort of drainage issues that are for single family
with a pond or a bunch of apartment buildings because there is such a.. .and there is ground
water concerns. And then finally the other stress that, at least when people bring up what they
have for issues with this is the idea of the cul-de-sac and the MnDot not allowing access. We
spoke with MnDot from the very start of, well actually 20 months ago and yes, they cannot deny
a driveway but they will not allow a public street and we had given them several different
opportunities to allow a public street and that just is not allowed so, we have looked into those
extensively since January of 2005.
19
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick clarification. You mentioned something about clay. Was
that the old tile during the, I think it was...
Cara Otto: I think the clay was regarding a clay liner in the pond.
Mayor Furlong: Right, that's what I thought.
Cara Otto: There was some discussion about some old clay drain tile that's not on this property
but that was possibly abandoned and maybe staff can, there's really no one that knows where it is
but it's lower than the elevation of this property. It's an existing condition not on this property
and so what we're doing is we're effectively taking our site. Draining it to a pond rather than
allowing any water to get towards the west. The other thing is the, there is a good deal of water
that goes to the west and down the ditch of Highway 7. The pond that we're proposing is
actually going to be discharged into the ditch and then head south, so there will be quite a bit of
discharge that is taken away from that western ditch. So some of the issues as far as backing up
and stuff, there will be less volume going to that ditch than there is currently in some of those
larger storms so there still will be, we're not saying that we're going to fix every problem that
there is but we're saying we recognize what the history is there and we're trying to handle our
water in an appropriate manner to not further effect that. And in fact we think we're going to
improve it by, especially some of the Shorewood people. I would like to be in Shorewood now
there because they really, we're really taking a lot of their drainage by having storm sewer up
there and not having a drain. That way they really right now that water has nowhere to go. They
do not have catch basins in their back yard in some of the low points. Now we're putting catch
basins on our site so that that can't get that way so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Excuse me. Some of the other issues raised, the issue of dealing
with storm water after it leaves the development. Issues across Highway 7 and is that something
that, that's an issue that may have been raised as part of this discussion but is that something that
the developer's responsible for here?
Paul Oehme: It's staffs perspective that it's an existing issue, as one of the property owners has
already addressed, or discussed. You know there is an existing drainage issue out there, yet there
will be under normal flows, some more water coming across Highway 7 into these existing
ponds there, but it is an existing condition. It's something that the City really needs to address
because it is more of a regional issue than just the local development issue.
Mayor Furlong: From I was reading, that would be something that the City would address
regardless of whether this development goes forward.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Because those are issues that have to be addressed.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
20
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. The issue of traffic I think was raised. Any other
comments or responses from the staff with regard to the comments we just heard? Some of them
were sent in our staff report but anything you'd like to comment or question follow up? Sure.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Navratil, is that correct? He had concerns that he stated about his
drainage issues on the property. And the fact that they weren't, they hadn't been addressed with
him. Does staff have any comment about that?
Sharmeen AI-J aff: There is a French drain that's being introduced along the westerly edge of this
overall site, and I don't know Paul, you might want to elaborate on that.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I think we're benefiting the westerly properties by including that French
drain in there as the developer's engineer had indicated. We anticipate there will be less runoff to
the west through that MnDot ditch so we don't feel that there'd be any significant impacts to the
existing drain tile that's already out there. So it's a private system. We don't have anything on
record on that. It was brought to our attention I think at the last, at the Planning Commission so
we really haven't had a good opportunity to review that existing drain tile that evidently that is
out there, but nevertheless we don't think it's an issue based upon the development that's being
proposed tonight.
Wade Navratil: Excuse me, may I address that?
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Wade Navratil: Can I see your drainage pond there? Or Sharmeen. This has been brought up
before. I live down here and I went down to city hall in June to drop this off. The drain tile that
was.. .ends right here in the comer. Their pond is going to drain right into that, so even if I
hooked into this French drain right here, it's just going to pump it in a nice big circle... because
this drain is lower right here on Highway 7 ditch than what the drain of the pond would be.
Cara Otto: The drain of the pond actually goes south.
Wade Navratil: It will flow this way.
Cara Otto: No. The outlet of the pond goes on this side. There will be, through here, it will go
through the culvert. So our outlet control structure will actually be directed into this ditch
system which will come south...
Wade Navratil: Are you going to install that culvert because I don't believe there's one.
Cara Otto: Our survey crew actually shot the ends of these culverts, and it's also showed on the
Minnewashta Landings ponding plan.
Wade Navratil: Because we were always told this was going to come down the road section.
21
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Cara Otto: Nope. The only, what will come down that road ditch would be further down the
line. The French drain will all run into that.
Wade Navratil: The French drain will come out right here.
Cara Otto: No, the French drain will come out along here and then discharge out here. And then
if there's emergency events, the emergency overflow may come into this ditch as well as the
discharge but the design of the pond is to have an outlet control structure that would discharge
into the ditch here and will come through the culvert under Highway 7.
Mayor Furlong: Okay?
Wade Navratil: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Mayor Furlong?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: One other issue that was raised by the property owner to the west dealt with
buffers. This is a low density residential development. Typically there isn't a buffer required by
ordinance. However when we reviewed this application we treated it the same as a medium
density development which requires a higher number of buffer or trees along property lines and
that was the standard we held it to. So they are providing more than a typical low density
residential development would.
Mayor Furlong: So there is a buffer there?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: There is a buffer.
Mayor Furlong: That would be the equivalent if this was a medium density development.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Even though it's low density.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: From an actual density standpoint. Okay.
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: And that surrounds the entire site. Properties to the north along the highway
and properties to the west.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other follow up questions?
22
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Councilman Peterson: Sharmeen one of the questions that came out of the Planning Commission
was, they cited 79 livable units. Where does that come from or is that just an error in numbers?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: I believe that, in that instance there was some miscalculation. There are a
total of 38 units that are proposed on this site.
Councilman Peterson: And is it accurate then, is the 24 accurate that single family would have
allowed 24?
Sharmeen AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Clarifications at this point. If not then, appreciate
everybody's comments and information. At this point I'd like to open it up for council discussion
on the matter before us and during the process of our discussion, points of interest, our thoughts
on some of the issues that have been raised tonight and earlier in the Planning Commission
process. Councilwoman Tjornhom or Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: You know I think that number one, I like the project. My question is, is it
the most appropriate for that space. You know it brings a type of housing stock into our
community that we don't have a lot of. And Councilwoman Tjornhom has talked about it a lot.
The single family townhouse side. And rezoning is a big deal to me. It always has. I mean
we've talked about it and the magic word, is there a compelling reason to rezone, and that's what
I looked at as I looked at the minutes of the Planning Commission and looked at what's in front
of us this evening and I really think that there is a compelling reason to rezone. I don't, you
know I read all of the issues that, that the neighbors had and you know I think that we can, I
think we can and have addressed them and we can probably continue to tweak them and make it
a better development for the neighbors also. So going back to my point, I do think there's a
compelling reason here because it brings a different housing stock to our community and to the
area that I think is an asset to the neighborhood. Some of the neighbors will disagree with that.
Some wouldn't disagree with it so, you know tonight I'm asked to rezone and you know I'm
comfortable with that. The access to, the access to Highway 7 I think is, you know we want to
make everybody understand that the less access to Highway 7 you know is to increase safety.
You know obviously you balance that against is there increased danger on the streets and getting
more traffic on the streets but the probability of accidents are certainly a lot more on Highway 7
than in a neighborhood. So is it more reasonable to put more traffic on the residential street than
trying to access in and out of Highway 7? Probably. So where I'm at is that I'm comfortable
with the development. I think it's well thought out. I think we tried to address as many of the
neighbors concerns as we can and I think we should move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I'll just give you my thoughts...issues, obviously the
neighbors have concerns with drainage issues but I think those are pre-existing. I don't think this
development has caused or would cause these issues.. . and made a plan to make sure that maybe
23
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
you have drier yards and streets, and I think that's a positive. Obviously a positive reason for
approving this development. And I'd be crazy if I said that this isn't what I want. What I would
want. I've always been preaching that I want to keep our residents that normally probably would
move to Eden Prairie or somewhere else that has this type of housing. I want to keep them here
and I think that we're giving them a chance to do that, and I think it fits in well with the
neighborhood. I go to Freeman Park frequently to drop off my child for baseball and I drive by a
neighborhood all the time that's single story, I don't know if they're townhouses or condos, what
they are but, so that type of housing is in the neighborhood, or in the area and actually when it
comes down to traffic counts, I think your traffic count was there are less cars going to be
coming from this type of residence rather than a single family neighborhood and so that also was
a positive thing. The long cul-de-sac, you know Highway 7's a risky highway to get on if you're
going east or west. No matter what direction it is. So I think the less probability of having
accidents you know, that also is a positive, a positive change for Highway 7 and so with that I
think all I can say is that I'll be voting to approve this tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist, thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: My comments would be similar to what's said before. Primarily with,
as I look for a compelling reason to rezone, I think this is a unique housing stock product that we
don't have much of now, and one that we've looked for opportunities to do and to provide. The
access on Highway 7, I look at that as a positive for taking some of those out of there. The
drainage I think is only, you know we look to control these sites and developments the best we
can to not affect everyone else but potential, you know can't fix all of it and it seems like this one
may actually help in the area as well so, for the reason of providing that you new housing stock
out there, I don't see it as a, it is a small step up in density but not one that's a major step and to
provide that stock of housing in the city, I'm willing to go ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I think I first learned of this development probably back in
January, perhaps even December of last year. This project was originally scheduled I believe to
come, if memory serves, to the Planning Commission early March timeframe. There were a
number of issues raised by neighboring property owners, through email and phone calls at the
time and I know I had conversations with the City Manager and development staff about those
issues and those issues were the same ones we heard tonight and at the Planning Commission. It
was traffic flow, storm water, and density. At the time, January-February timeframe earlier this
year, I encouraged staff to make sure that we had good answers, whatever those answers are.
Not directing staff to come up with answers that serve one purpose or another, but to answer the
questions that are being raised. Now we're sitting here at the end of August and the reason for
that is it took some time to get some answers, specifically on ground water. When it was first
proposed in January and February, the ground was frozen and we couldn't get information that
the engineers needed to make some valid calculations in terms of that. This area has high ground
water, that's clear. I think Councilwoman Tjomhom spoke about pre-existing condition, and that
was one of the things that took some time so, in terms of how this process has gone, some people
have commented this evening, and I know at the Planning Commission about slowing the
process down. I think we, the process has moved at a fair pace, and in fact in some cases
perhaps some people might think slow already, but the key is whether we're moving fast or slow,
are we getting the questions answered? And are we getting the information we need to make a
24
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
sound decision? With regard to the rezoning, which is the primary question before the council
this evening, this again while it is a rezoning, it is consistent with our comprehensive plan.
We're not, sometimes we get requests to change from our low density to high density or a large
lot to medium or other types of requests which may be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
This question is not. It is based upon the information I see. It is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that's important. Are there more units here than would be here if a
different type of low density development occurred? Yeah. There are, but that doesn't make it
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I think the issues of traffic that we've discussed and
have been raised, there have been some options including right-in only access off Highway 7. I
think my concern with that, and we could sit back and say well if MnDot doesn't let us, then
we're done. But just looking at the map and the site plan and there's been comments about the
traffic going up to the elementary school and others, by creating that we'd be just creating
another cut through opportunity I think as well through the neighborhood, and I don't think that's
fair to anyone. I think the more opportunity we have in our development process to concentrate
traffic at intersections that eventually will provide a safer crossing, such as the Church Road and
Minnewashta Parkway, Highway 7 intersection, we should do that. Because as soon as we can
get a stop light there, a safer access for everybody. Not only people on Highway 7 but also our
residents north and south of Highway 7. I say our residents. We're all neighbors. It's going to
be safer for everybody. So you know as we look at the issues, the stormwater issues, I think
those have been well thought out. I'm glad to hear, and we got some more information even this
evening that there seemed to be some misinformation about the flow of the water and I think
that's helpful that we were able to do that and address the resident's concern but hearing tonight
that the pond is actually over sized for the density that will be there, gives me some comfort as
well. And we have other issues. Earlier tonight we approved a comprehensive stormwater
management plan for the city and in there were a number of priorities, a number of issues around
the system in terms of managing storm water in Chanhassen, that we know we need to address
and there are ways to do that and we heard about another one tonight, just south of Highway 7.
Not tonight but through this process, and that's what we need to do. When those are identified,
then we need to try to address them as best we can so, I think the overall, with regard to
rezoning, I think it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. I think it's a reasonable request
tonight and there is compelling reasons, I agree with earlier comments made in terms of this
property and I believe the development's a good one and I think that the issues that have been
raised have been addressed. Fairly, objectively and in a reasonable way and to the extent that it
actually in some cases, such as with the stormwater, I suspect will improve the stormwater that's
currently coming off of this property into neighboring properties, both north and west. It's my
understanding and expectations this will actually improve that so, with that I think I appreciate
everybody's involvement, especially the residents around this property for raising these issues
early on in the process so that they can be addressed and taking time throughout the process to
address them. And I appreciate, as I said, everybody's involvement. Any other thoughts or
comments? Concerns?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I'd just like to thank Sharmeen and Paul for the effort that they put into
this project. I challenge my staff constantly to look at alternatives to each development that
comes in, and that's why we have the variance process. Or the rezoning process in this case.
And to run it up a ladder to see you know is this a project that would be a project that would be
acceptable to this community. And it does provide an alternative housing to typically what
25
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
would be a single family. You have both single family, twin and town home development here
that is under traditional planning standards a buffer from a major collector like 7 to single family.
So you know this is following typical planning standards and Sharmeen has done an excellent
job in working with the developer on this project and I think it's a great project for the city and I
just want to thank Sharmeen and her efforts on working on this.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any other thoughts or discussion? If not, the motions begin
on page 22 of the staff report or 47 of the electronic packet. Is there someone that would like to
make a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd move that the City Council approve Case 06-10 to rezone
12.99 acres of property zoned RSF into Residential Single Family. In addition I also make
recommendation the City Council approve preliminary plat for the subdivision, Case 06-10 for
Boulder Cove and 39 lots and one outlot shown on plans received July 7,2006, subject to the
conditions set forth into the staff report, along with the Findings of Facts as attached.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all vote with
complete as far as attaching the Findings of Fact and we got everything in there with the
variances?
Roger Knutson: You know I hate it when he does that.
Councilman Peterson: It's only taken me about 18 years.
Mayor Furlong: After so many years he's finally learned. Hearing no discussion.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Case #06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for the Boulder Cove as
shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006, and revised July 25, 2006, subject to the
following condition:
1. Lot 22, Block 1, Boulder Cover shall remain under the Residential Single Family zoning
district.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for 39 lots and
1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006,
incorporating the Findings of Fact as attached, and subject to the following conditions:
26
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
1. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staff review. The
revised calculations should include the entire area drained by the north ditch of Trunk
Highway 7 since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two existing
culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7.
2. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
3. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat approval.
4. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller must be designed by an engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota and requires a building permit.
5. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer extension
from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work
in right-of-way permit) and West 62nd Street must be restored.
6. Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility
plan.
7. The utility plan must show the existing drainage and utility easements on the Miller and
Navratil properties.
8. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller's fence as a result of the
watermain installation.
9. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
10. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications must be submitted at time of final plat.
11. The private street must be constructed to a 7 -ton design.
12. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard
areas and bufferyards.
13. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or as close to
that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of
the grading limits prior to any construction.
14. All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within the
dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond.
15. No evergreens shall be planted in the front yards within a space less than 40 feet in width
between driveways.
27
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
16. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in order to
protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line.
17. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family dwelling,
$5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex.
18. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponds and storm water
conveyance features outside of the public ROW.
19. The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and shall
be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed (perforated
standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall be provided within
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
20. Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water basin
within 24 hours of outlet installation.
21. Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) shall be installed within 24 hours of
inlet installation. A detail shall be provided in the SWPPP.
22. The proposed rock construction entrance shall be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75 feet in
length with a filter fabric installed under the rock.
23. 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
Steeper than 3: 1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
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.
24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per week or as
conditions warrant.
25. The plans shall be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots and
multifamily lots.
26. At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are
estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of the per-acre
28
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond.
27. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
28. Building Department conditions:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined
by the Building Official.
d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan for
review and approval prior to final plat of the property.
e. 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. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be
abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code.
f. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
g. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
h. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
1. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
J. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
29
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
k. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
29. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A lO-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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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 Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
f. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
30. All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on lot 22, block 1,
shall be removed.
31. Lot 22, Block 1, shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%.
32. Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be modified to reflect the new layout of Outlot A.
33. A cross-access easement agreement shall be granted in favor of the property located at 3520
Highway 7."
34. Work with the developer to resolve the back flow on the drain tile at the vicinity of the
French tile outlet.
35. Work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan Case #06-10 to construct four three-plexes as shown on the plans dated
received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006, with the following conditions:
30
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three-
plexes.
2. The single family, two-plexes and three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and
floor plans dated received August 18,2006.
3. The applicant shall submit two additional colors for the Hardie Board siding.
4. The applicant shall add a pitched element above each entryway to further add to the
articulation of the roof line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Councilman Lundquist: Did we do the site plan too?
Mayor Furlong: Did he get the site plan in there? I thought he did. You got all of them didn't
you?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: That's what I thought. Very good.
REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND
SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL CORRIDOR AND BLUFF
CREEK DRIVE. APPLICANT ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS.
Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. Zumbro River Constructors is, are the contractor
for the 212 improvements and they're looking at additional site disposal for excess material for
this project. They have discussed several opportunities with existing property owners out here
for disposal of excess material and they have requested that the City Council consider Interim
Use Permits for this grading. Staff has reviewed these applications. We are in favor of one site.
And the other two, we're requesting that the council consider denial. The sites are all located on
Bluff Creek Drive. One off of Hesse Farms Road and two off of Bluff Creek Drive as shown
here. The new 212 alignment is shown. The first I'd like to just go through each of these sites
real briefly. The first site is the site off of Hesse Farms Road.
Mayor Furlong: Is this Site #1 in the staff report? You're going to take them in order? Thank
you.
Paul Oehme: Yes, I'll try to do them in order.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
31