The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Packet 2006 04 10AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, APRIL 10, 2006 CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 5:00 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM. Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. A. Commission Interviews: 5:00 p.m. – Barbara Nevin, Senior Commission 5:15 p.m. – Kevin Dillon, Park & Recreation Commission/Planning Commission 5:30 p.m. – Jim Sommers, Planning Commission/Environmental Commission 5:45 p.m. – Virginia Prior, Senior Commission 6:00 p.m. – Tom Schwartz, Planning Commission/Environmental Commission 6:15 p.m. – Debbie Larson, Planning Commission 6:30 p.m. – Kurt Papke, Planning Commission Discussion of Appointments 6:50 p.m. – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM B1. Review of Sand Companies Housing District TIF Plans/Development Agreement. B2. Approval of Economic Development Authority Minutes dated January 23, 2006. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS C. Invitation to Easter Egg Candy Hunt. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. 1. a. Approval of Minutes: - City Council Summary Minutes dated March 13, 2006 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated March 13, 2006 - City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 20, 2006 - City Council Summary Minutes dated March 20, 2006 - City Council Verbatim Minutes dated March 20, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: - Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated March 21, 2006 - Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated March 21, 2006 b. 2005 MUSA Improvements, Bid Package #2, Project 06-05: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids. c. Longacres Stormwater Pond Improvements, Project 06-09 & Lyman Boulevard Sewer Repairs, Project 06-08: Approve Consultant Contract. d. Stonefield, 1601 Lyman Boulevard, Applicant: Plowshares: 1. Final Plat Approval. 2. Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications e. Gateway North, Northwest Intersection of the Future Alignment of Highways 101 & 212, Applicant: Sand Companies: 1. Final Plat Approval 2. Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications f. East Water Treatment Plant, Project No. 04-08-4: Approve Quote with CenturyTel for Fiber Optic Installation. g. Lake Susan Park Playground Poured-in-Place Resilient Surfacing Project: Award of Bid. h. 2006 Fireworks Contract: Award of Bid. i. T-Mobile: Approval of Cell Tower Lease Agreement, Melody Hill Water Tower. j. Christensen Subdivision, 6710 Golden Court, Applicant: Robert Christensen - Final Plat Approval. k. 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01: Approve Resolution Deleting the Koehnen Street Improvements. l. Surface Water Management Plan: Approve Budget Modification No. 2. m. Hidden Creek, Project No. 02-09: Accept Street & Storm Sewer Improvements. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Boyer Lake Minnewashta, Vacation File 06-01: Consider Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easement. 3. Sand Companies Housing District: Public Hearing on TIF Plans and Establishment of TIF District #9; Approval of Resolution & Plans. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 4. Lake Riley/Rice Marsh Lake Water Quality Improvement, Applicant: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District: Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit for Excavation and Maintenance of 5 Storm Water Ponds for the Purpose of Improving Water Quality in Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley Watersheds. 5. Liberty at Creekside, 1500 Pioneer Trail, Applicant: Town & Country Homes: Request for Rezoning of Property from A-2 to PUD-R; Subdivision with Variances of Approximately 36.01 Acres into 29 Lots, 5 Outlots, and Public Right-of-Way; Site Plan Approval for 146 Townhouses; and a Conditional Use Permit for Alterations within the Flood Plain and Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 6. Chanhassen West Business Park, Lot 2, Block 2 Chanhassen West Business Park, Applicant: Eden Trace Corporation: Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment for Reduced Parking Setback at the Southern Property Line and Site Plan Review for an Office/Warehouse Building. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE SECTION ADJOURNMENT A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. 1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. 2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. 3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. 4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. 5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Commission Interview Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: Commission Interviews The next round of Commission interviews has been scheduled for Monday, April 10 in the Fountain Conference Room. The following schedule has been established: a. 5:00 p.m. – Barbara Nevin, Senior Commission b. 5:15 p.m. – Kevin Dillon, Park & Recreation Commission/Planning Commission c. 5:30 p.m. – Jim Sommers, Planning Commission/Environmental Commission d. 5:45 p.m. – Virginia Prior, Senior Commission e. 6:00 p.m. – Tom Schwartz, Planning Commission/Environmental Commission f. 6:15 p.m. – Debbie Larson, Planning Commission (incumbent) g. 6:30 p.m. – Kurt Papke, Planning Commission Staff has prepared a list of potential questions to ask applicants, as well as a proposed scoring sheet for your use. INVITATION TO EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT With springtime here, the City of Chanhassen, in cooperation with our local business community, is proud to announce the second event in our year round special event series. The event, “The Easter Egg Candy Hunt,” will be held on Saturday, April 15th. At this time, I invite all area residents, their families, and friends to join me at the Chanhassen Recreation Center for this event. The event will begin at 9:00 AM starting off with children’s musical entertainment performed by “The Splatter Sisters.” Immediately to follow will be the Easter Egg Candy Hunt divided into three age groups. Each age group will search for a “GOLDEN EGG” with the locater of the egg receiving a prize. I also invite children ages 4-12 to participate in the annual coloring contest. Prizes will also be awarded to the winner in each category. Coloring contest entry forms may be picked up and dropped off at City Hall or the Chanhassen Recreation Center or may be found on the city website. This event has a minimal registration fee of $3 for participants ages 18 months -12 years and pre-registration can also be done at City Hall or the Chanhassen Recreation Center. I look forward to seeing everyone there. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MARCH 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman Tjornhom and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Lori Haak, and Don Asleson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Jerry McDonald Planning Commission Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail Julie & John Koch 471 Bighorn Drive Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong announced that the City Council will be meeting on Monday, March 20th instead of March 27th as it’s regularly scheduled meeting date. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong presented an amendment to item 1(d)-2. Janet Paulsen asked that item 1(d) be pulled for discussion of the private street issue. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 27, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 27, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 21, 2006 b. Resolution #2006-19: 2006 Sealcoat Project 06-02: Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids. e. Accept $2,000 Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp. City Council Summary – March 13, 2006 2 f. Accept Quote for 2006 Boulevard Tree Planting Program. g. Approve Certificate of Compliance for Market Square 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. D. LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK, LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL: 1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 2) APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Kate Aanenson addressed the issues of public and private streets, where parking is allowed and impervious surface. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive stated that the question was raised by Janet Paulsen because the condition is not clear on the final plat. The condition does ask for additional parking by allowing them to park on streets but it doesn’t say public streets. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the final plat, plans and specifications and development contract for Liberty on Bluff Creek, amended to include in condition 5 a third bullet point: Parking is not allowed on private streets. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. MUSA EXPANSION, BID PACKAGE #2 PROJECT 06-05: PUBLIC HEARING, ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Jon Horn Kimley-Horn and Associates Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road John Chadwick 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington Richard Palmiter D.R. Horton Kevin Clark Town & Country Homes Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item and introduced Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates who gave a power point presentation reviewing the construction project. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification of why costs are different now than what was presented in the feasibility report. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard stated that he appreciates that the road is stopping at the edge of the property but still has a question why the City does not hold off until the land use study is completed. If approving this plan is fixing and locking that road in place, the location of the north collector City Council Summary – March 13, 2006 3 road, and access onto and through his property will be fixed. Jeff Fox, representing the Jeff and Terry Fox piece south of Lyman and the Fox Family parcel submitted letters and notice of appeal for the record. He stated concerns with the location of the east/west collector road limiting access through his parcels. He agreed with Mr. Dorsey in requesting that the council wait for the results of the land use study before approving the road configuration. Kevin Clark, Vice President of Land Development for Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company thanked the City Council, commissions and city staff for their work over the last 3 years and encouraged the council to move ahead with this project. John Chadwick, 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington, representing the Peterson parcel stated their support for the project. Rick Dorsey showed the council a map of the impacts of the proposed road alignment on his property. Mayor Furlong asked Mr. Dorsey to explain why he does not want to see the road constructed up the western edge of the property. Jeff Fox provided further clarification on their request for flexibility with the road design. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson was not present during the vote. The public hearing was closed. After comments by the commission the following motion was made. Resolution #2006-20: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for City Project No. 06-05, Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM NPDES PHASE II, MS4 PERMIT. Don Asleson and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item and asked that the council hold a public hearing. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. No action was needed on this item. DAVE & MARYJO BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A 22.5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, A 15.8 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE (DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT) AND A 2.39% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING ONE-STALL GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A MODIFIED THREE STALL GARAGE ON A NONCONFORMING CORNER LOT OF RECORD. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Dave Bangasser stated they were in agreement with the compromises reached with staff. Janet Paulsen asked for clarification on the parameters for combining lots and impervious surface coverage. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a City Council Summary – March 13, 2006 4 modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. ROSSAVIK ADDITION, 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, APPLICANT ARILD ROSSAVIK: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF); AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH VARIANCES. City Council Summary – March 13, 2006 5 Public Present: Name Address Ed Kraft 8711 Flamingo Drive Mark Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the zoning and guiding in the comprehensive plan for this parcel. Mark Kelly, representing Mr. Rossavik presented their request. Mayor Furlong asked staff to clarify the statements made by Mr. Kelly regarding regulations for sewer hook-up and the commercial operation of Mr. Bizek. He asked for public comments. No one spoke and the issue was brought back to the council for discussion and comments, after which the following motions were made. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, adopting the findings of fact. That the City Council denies the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council denies the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street, based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD Public Present: Name Address David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Boulevard David & Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard Sandy & Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail Dave Wondra 9590 Foxford Road Tom Anderson 9371 Foxford Road Magdy & June Ebrahim 521 Pineview Court Steve Shipley 261 Eastwood Court Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification of lighting requirements, berming, size of the teaching shelter and storage building, number of parking spaces, and impervious surface. City Council Summary – March 13, 2006 6 Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for further clarification of lighting standards, hours of operation, including clarification of the definition of sunrise to sunset. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on the request for the size of the maintenance building. Erik Olson, 9855 Delphinium Lane and manager of Halla Greens Golf Course presented background information and addressed the issues of lighting, size and need of the maintenance and ball washing buildings, hours of operation, and the change in scope of the business operation from the previous application. Mayor Furlong opened the meeting for public comment. David Walstad, 10071 Great Plains Boulevard, which is directly south at the end of the driving range expressed concern with the height of the light fixtures and hours that the parking lot will be lit. David Gatto, 9631 Foxford Road speaking on behalf of the 37 families that live on Foxford Road, Pinecrest Road and Eastwood Court expressed concern with the request for expansion of the business plan, hours of operation, noise from the outdoor seating area, lighting of the night sky, size of the maintenance buildings, and decrease in property values. Gaye Guyton, 10083 Great Plains Boulevard stated her concern with the change in scope of the business and it’s affect on the neighborhood. Judy Walstad, 10071 Great Plains Boulevard asked for clarification on the height of the club house building, and lighting from this operation impacting their home. Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford Road expressed concern with hours of operation in relation to selling liquor, and the size of the teaching shelter. Steve Shipley, 261 Eastwood Court and owner of a business in Chanhassen, being well aware of the building regulations in Chanhassen had concern that Mr. Halla was not meeting those regulations, especially with the lighting standards. He also asked for the location of the garbage containers. Mayor Furlong asked Jerry McDonald, Acting Chair the night this item was heard at the Planning Commission, for an explanation of the actions taken by the Planning Commission. Mayor Furlong asked for further clarification on lighting regulations and photometric standards. After council discussion and comments, the following motion was made. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table the Site Plan Amendment and variances for the construction of a golf course, Halla Greens, located on the southeast corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt reminded the council of a meeting on March 16th at 7:00 p.m. with the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman Tjornhom and Councilman Peterson COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Lori Haak, and Don Asleson PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Jansen Chanhassen Villager Jerry McDonald Planning Commission Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail Julie & John Koch 471 Bighorn Drive Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody that joined us here this evening on this snowy night and those that are watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. At this time I would ask if there’s any changes or modifications to the agenda that was distributed with the packet. If there are none, then we’ll proceed with the agenda that’s distributed. Without objection. Next item I’d like to make, just a quick reminder announcement. Earlier this year when the council approved our meeting schedule for the year, we were aware of some possible conflicts coming up so normally we would not meet for another 2 weeks but, on March 27th but in this case we will be meeting again next Monday night on March 20th as a regularly scheduled meeting and will not be meeting on the 27th. If you have any questions regarding what’s on that agenda or anything, please contact City Hall and someone will be able to help you. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: So at this point I would ask if there is a member of the council or others present that would like to remove an item for the consent agenda. And I also have one correction on item 1(d)-2. The amounts should be corrected to read $28,459 in the second paragraph and again under letter c, capital C for the additional letter of credit. Is that correct Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 2 Mayor Furlong: So that would be the motion on item 1(d)-2. So is there any other item that anybody else would like to remove for separate discussion? Mrs. Paulsen, did you indicate that you wanted, if you’d like to come forward and request. Janet Paulsen: I’m Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I’d like to request Liberty on the Creek to be removed from the consent agenda. And the private street issue discussed. Mayor Furlong: And you had a question on the private street? Kate Aanenson: I’m prepared to answer that quickly. Mayor Furlong: Okay, we’ll remove it so we can deal with it and then we’ll pick it up right afterwards. With that, are there any other items to be removed? If not is there a motion to approve items 1(a) through (g) excluding (d) as in David? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 27, 2006 -City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 27, 2006 Receive Commission Minutes: -Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 21, 2006 b. Resolution #2006-19: 2006 Sealcoat Project 06-02: Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids. e. Accept $2,000 Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp. f. Accept Quote for 2006 Boulevard Tree Planting Program. g. Approve Certificate of Compliance for Market Square 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. D. LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK, LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL: 1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. 2) APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Mayor Furlong: Now Mrs. Paulsen is back in her seat. Your question related to parking on private streets or a question about whether it’s being allowed or not? City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 3 Kate Aanenson: I can just address some of, go through the. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Kate Aanenson: This is zoned R-8. That does PUD, on the underlying R-8 which doesn’t allow private streets without a variance. Just to be clear, when we reviewed this entire project, the input from the city staff was that these looping streets all be public. The only private, this is also a public street. The only places where there’s on street parking is on a public street. And this is the only area that’s all private and there is guest parking that meets city code. That would not be on a street so that is consistent with city ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Off street parking? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And then in addition you’ll see other spots, again where there’s private streets. If you remember when this first came in the driveways were shorter so we worked hard to get that parking, guest parking on those driveways or guest parking so it is consistent with city code. And then just there was another question regarding impervious surface and that was addressed in the preliminary plat. It is consistent with what the zoning ordinance allows and that’s balanced over the entire site so. I believe that’s the questions. Mayor Furlong: Were there any changes in either of these two issues between the preliminary, or the. Kate Aanenson: No, this is the plat pretty much that you saw when it was given approval for preliminary plat, so the final plat’s consistent with that. The thing that we did review was the architectural standards, the color palettes which we included in your packet. The different iterations. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Lundquist: Kate is that then, those private streets, that will be signed as no parking? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct and we’re working with the applicants right now to talk about how we can differentiate that and addressing so it has a nice flow to it and easy access. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mrs. Paulsen, any follow up questions? Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I just think the question was raised because the condition is really not clear on the final plat. The condition does ask for additional parking. By allowing them to park on streets, it doesn’t say just public streets. On the streets. And I think the condition could easily be remedied by saying credit for on street parking is not allowed along the curb of public streets nor on the private street, because without that stated in there, who’s to prevent that interpretation from in the future not being acknowledged? That’s what, you know it’s just, that’s why we’re questioning it. It’s unclear. It led us to question it and by code, City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 4 Chapter 18-57(o)(2) clearly states, parking on private streets or otherwise blocking all or part of the private street shall be prohibited. And unless people know when they’re buying that they cannot park on those private streets, and now granted we did hear it would be fine, but in the condition it doesn’t state that they’re not using the private street parking to help meet the requirement that, because they’re falling short of parking spaces. So I think the report could be clearer. We didn’t catch it earlier. We just caught it in the final reading and I thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Yes quick question of staff and possibly the City Attorney with regard to the wording. She raised a question whether the wording is clear in the existing. Councilman Lundquist: That would be condition 5. Kate, any objections to adding a condition 5 to say, as a third bullet point, parking not allowed on the private streets? Kate Aanenson: That’s fine. Councilman Lundquist: I mean it clarifies the ordinance. Kate Aanenson: It’s in the ordinance, right, and it would be…and the applicants, the developers agree to that. Mayor Furlong: I think I see the applicant here, there’ll be no problem with that? Okay. Alright. That’s fine. Councilman Lundquist: I would propose that we amend condition 5 with that. Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you just make a motion. Councilman Lundquist: Propose to move to amend condition 5 with the third bullet point, parking not allowed on private streets. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And other than that you’re making a motion for the entire item 1(d), correct? 1 and 2? Councilman Lundquist: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the final plat, plans and specifications and development contract for Liberty on Bluff Creek, amended to include in condition 5 a third bullet point: Parking is not allowed on private streets. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 5 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. MUSA EXPANSION, BID PACKAGE #2 PROJECT 06-05: PUBLIC HEARING, ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS. Public Present: Name Address Jon Horn Kimley-Horn and Associates Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road John Chadwick 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington Richard Palmiter D.R. Horton Kevin Clark Town & Country Homes Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Staff is requesting that the council hold a public hearing and consider authorizing preparation of final plans and specs for the Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements. This is a third phase in improvements to provide service to the 2005 development area or MUSA area. In all 100% of the properties that are proposed to be assessed for street improvements for this project are either in the city development review process or scheduled to bring their projects forward for the start of the development review process here in the next month. All of these developments could potentially start construction phases of their project this summer. We still pay for future development necessary infrastructure. We’ll need to reconstruct it to provide access to the city and to provide city services. This project that we’ll be discussing here tonight will allow for this future development. At this time I’d like to invite Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates to give a brief presentation on the project. Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor and council. My name is Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates. As Mr. Oehme said, we’d just like to do a brief overview for you of the proposed project. We just put a brief power point together and what we hope to accomplish tonight is give you an overview of the feasibility report. Talk a little bit about the proposed improvements. Give you cost and financing information. Discuss the project schedule for you and then open it up for the public hearing. Terms of the 2005 MUSA improvements. This actually started with the feasibility report that was done back in August of 2004. A number of improvements in that feasibility report have since been implemented. They’re improvements associated with the 212/312 project that have started, as well as some utility and bridge improvements which is really bid package #1. Just to refresh your memory, this exhibit shows what the bid package #1 improvements are. It’s primarily extension of sanitary sewer and water main south of Lyman Boulevard, down to Bluff Creek and the construction of a bridge crossing of Bluff Creek. Bid package #2 includes the roadway and utility improvements. Basically an extension of bid package #1. The new feasibility report was done to accomplish a couple of different things. One, address a number of changes in the scope of the project to address the updated estimated costs and updated financing plan and the updated schedule. In terms of what’s changed in the scope of the project, primarily the roadway alignment is a lot different than it was in the original City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 6 feasibility report. We spent a lot of time working with the adjacent property owners to develop the roadway alignment and it has changed since the original feasibility report. We’ve added some round abouts for a couple of reasons. To provide some traffic calming along the roadway. A lot of concerns raised by the adjacent property owners about traffic calming. We’ve added landscaping and street lighting as a part of the project. We have changed the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer design as well in response to a number of issues in the project area, and we have added some wetland mitigation in the project area in response to a wetland that we’re impacting. This exhibit shows the proposed bid package 2 improvements. It basically is the extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road on the west to a round about and then northerly to a creek crossing. One significant change is the roadway basically now going over the creek and stopping at the edge of the Degler property that’s now proposed as a part of this project to extend it over to Powers Boulevard. A lot of concerns and issues raised by the property owners east of that line in terms of what their ultimate plans are for their development and as a result and response to those concerns we are proposing that the roadway construction be stopped at that location. In terms of the typical roadway section, it is a parkway type design. Two through lanes, or one through lane in each direction with a landscape median as well as landscaping in the boulevard areas. A lot of discussions about what the width of this roadway should be. We feel like we’ve achieved a design that addresses the traffic calming issues, as well addresses some of the public works safety and maintenance perspectives. I know Chanhassen as a downtown area went through a lot of evolution in terms of the downtown roadways. We’ve tried very hard to try to accomplish a design that provides traffic calming as well as meets the maintenance needs of the area. We have spent a lot of time, as I mentioned, coordinating the improvements with the adjacent property owners. This exhibit shows some of the adjacent proposed developments, both north and south of the proposed roadway. As Paul mentioned, all these proposed projects are in some form of development. In terms of the estimated cost, feasibility report identifies cost for roadway, watermain, and sanitary sewer improvements. Total estimated cost of the project is a little under 6.2 million dollars. Little over 5.1 in roadway improvements. 480 for trunk watermain and 585 for trunk sanitary sewer. In terms of paying for these improvements, a majority of the roadway, or the project costs proposed to be paid for through assessments. Little over 75% of the project costs are being paid for through assessments to adjacent property owners. The City is providing some funding for the project. Water utility fund to pay for some of the oversizing of the water system. Sanitary sewer utility fund to pay over, for similar sizing in the sanitary sewer system. And then state aid for some of the expansion of the roadway system, above and beyond what would typically be required for development. This exhibit shows the proposed assessment area. All the properties shown in yellow on this exhibit will be assessed. You notice there is some cross hatching on the two Fox properties. Because the roadway and utilities aren’t being extended onto these properties, those properties are not proposed to be assessed in entirety for all the roadway and utilities. Only being assessed for extension of sanitary sewer and watermain stubs. No roadway assessments to those properties. In terms of the schedule, tonight’s the public hearing on March 13th. We intend to have plans back to the City Council for approval of April 10th. Award a construction contract on June 5th and then proceed to construction June 19th with construction being completed yet in 2006 with a proposed assessment hearing on November 13th of 2006. A number of these dates are asterisks. There’s been some slight changes in the project schedule from the original feasibility report, just to address some of the coordination issues with the adjacent property owners. And in terms of the purpose of the feasibility report, through the 429 City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 7 process the feasibility report needs to identify that the proposed improvements are feasible, necessary and cost effective. From the engineering perspective we feel that the improvements are feasible. They are necessary to provide for the service needs of the adjacent property owners and to allow the expansion of the 2005 MUSA area. And from a cost effective perspective we feel the improvements are very similar to other projects we’ve seen elsewhere in the metro area, and the willingness of the adjacent property owners to pay the assessments I think is also testimony to the cost effective nature of the improvements. So with that we’ll open up to questions. If council has any other questions or needs additional information. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Horn, can you talk a little bit about the difference as we proceeded through the feasibility study and the different things that have happened as we look at this one, the costs are different than the feasibility study. Can you delineate some of what those major differences are or the line items that are driving that? Jon Horn: Sure. In terms of the some of the key changes that have been made that have added additional costs to the project. One is the addition of the round abouts. You can recall some of the evolution of the project, we added those in. There’s some additional costs associated with those just because of the additional curb and gutter and pavement associated with that, so there was some additional cost there. There was additional cost associated with the wetland mitigation as we worked through the alignment design. We ended up that we identified the fact that we did impact a wetland in response to that and in accordance with the wetland conservation act, we had to do some wetland mitigation. The street lighting and the landscaping was not originally included as a part of the feasibility report. The original intention was that the developer would do that where I think as we worked through the design we just felt it was prudent that the City invest some into that, allowing the developers then to come and supplement it. We just felt like there should be some additional initial impact there with street lighting and landscaping. And then just the design and the alignment. We spent a lot of time working with the adjacent property owners in terms of grades to meet the needs of their development areas, as well as the alignment and that resulted in some cost changes as well. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. In the grand, or estimate on the difference in cost total? Jon Horn: We have tried to go back and correlate where we’re at today with the original feasibility report. It’s kind of hard to do an apples to apples because things are different, but generally we feel like the cost increase is around 9%, something like that of project cost increase. And then relating that to the assessments, we also looked at the assessments by property owner. Depending upon the property owner, the assessments increased from anywhere from about 5% to 20%. Again a lot of issues impacted that. We changed the assessment area quite a bit. The design changed. Quite a few things changed between the original feasibility report and the subsequent feasibility report. Councilman Lundquist: So when you talk a bit, the thing that I struggled with when I looked at the differences between them is the not finishing the road I think is the part where, so you’re City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 8 talking about a percent difference change that you just assign a price per hundred foot or whatever it is to try to get it to apples to apples. Jon Horn: We kind of did a proration and try to pull out the piece that we weren’t building to come up with the cost estimate that we could compare to the feasibility report, so again it’s kind of hard to apples to apples because you really don’t have the same project anymore but that’s what we did. We went through that exercise to pull out the prorated cost of the piece of the roadway that we weren’t constructing. Councilman Lundquist: And then it also seems like that westerly piece, when I look at that, tends to be the more expensive piece. You’ve got the bridge crossing, or the creek crossing and some of that other stuff in there so, you know I tried to do some rough math on the per foot stuff. It doesn’t work out all that great but you’ve got some different things going on in the west piece of that versus the east too. Jon Horn: There is quite a bit more grading that occurs in that. Councilman Lundquist: And my favorite round about there too. Mayor Furlong: Other questions for Mr. Horn? With regard to the schedule itself, I noticed there were some changes tonight versus what was in the packet. How tight is that schedule and how much flexibility is this? Jon Horn: We feel like it’s pretty comfortable in terms of being able to get the project done. If you recall we were trying to get that whole roadway built in 2006. Due to the fact that we’ve now shorten the amount of improvements that we built, we did get a good start on the utilities and the bridge here over the winter so I guess we feel pretty comfortable that we can get the improvements constructed in 2006. Mayor Furlong: And it looks like with the schedule you just put up, is a tighter schedule in terms of construction start versus substantially complete than what was in the packet. Is that correct? Jon Horn: Right, yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and you said the reason for that is? Getting things done inbetween. Jon Horn: Yeah, we’re trying to coordinate the public stuff with the work that’s going to be done by the developers. The developers are doing some of the grading work and just trying to make that all match is going to kind of be a key to the successful construction project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Horn, as we look at not doing that eastern portion of the road right now, any idea on what the incremental costs will be for remobilization and all that stuff as we, I mean obviously we’ve got all the stuff there. It’s easier to just put it through. I mean we’re City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 9 looking at choosing to do that for valid reasons but can you give us a guesstimate on what either the dollar amount or percentage wise or anything like that? Jon Horn: It’s difficult to put a number on that. I mean I think that that easterly portion is still a large enough project in terms of you know mobilizing a contractor to do the work. I think it’s large enough that it stands on it’s own so there shouldn’t be a lot of inefficiencies that way. One of the things we are losing is the inefficiency of the earthwork though. Originally we were intending to try to balance the earthwork on the entire job, all the way from Powers to Audubon, and as a result of deleting out that easterly portion, we’ve had to refocus that effort only on the westerly portion. So there’s probably some inefficiencies there. In terms of trying to put an exact dollar amount on it, it’s kind of hard to do that. It really depends upon the marketplace at the time and contractors and their willingness to do work and it’s kind of difficult to do that. Councilman Lundquist: Okay, fair enough. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? For staff or Mr. Horn at this time. If not, then we’ll open up the public hearing and to the extent that there are issues…address those as they come along. At this point I would open the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward. Please state your name and address and to address the council on this matter. Rick Dorsey: Mayor, council members. My name’s Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard. I have property that will abut the next phase of the road so I do have concerns with this. We do appreciate that the road is stopping at the edge of the property. With that though there’s still question in our mind why not hold off just a little longer until this land use study comes in to play. My understanding is that it should be a couple weeks away. It can maybe have an impact on land use on my property, the Fox’s property. Any of the other properties perhaps, depending on what the council wants to do with that land use study. It seems to me that the council authorized that land use study to try and help determine the land use in the area and that the road going in can have an impact on what ultimately can be done on that. That perhaps it’s prudent to wait until that study is completed and at least get an overview of it in 2 weeks time period when it’s supposedly going to be here as to if there’s any major changes that would impact the road system itself. In conjunction with that I do have, back on August 22nd the council approved this plan for engineering for the road. It takes into account the balance that’s going to go east of the Degler property. The questions would be, is approving this plan fixing and locking that road in place, number one. Number two, the location as you’ll note of the north collector doesn’t show up on the current plan that’s being proposed tonight. We believe that, or I believe, my family believes that this was the location that was desired and engineering was ordered on. We have spent time and money developing, starting preliminary plans for developments on our properties and used that as the basis. There are issues as far as where that would go. If it isn’t going to be there, that I think need to be discussed before we just go ahead and say this is where it is. Now we’ve got another problem down the road. I think planning in advance is prudent as far as that goes and so I would like to have that addressed this evening before you do pass any approval of the project. Another point that I’d like to bring up that over the last 3 years there’s been really nothing in the record, and I want to add this to public record, as far as access on my property. There’s some people that think perhaps that this road should be on my, this north collector on my property because we’re not contributing anything. We could work it into the deal and put it on City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 10 the Dorsey’s property. Well the Dorsey’s are looking at contributing a huge amount to this project in that at this point in time, this home sits on that property. It has not been duly noticed in any of the records other than there is a house sitting on the property. It’s not an ordinary house. It’s probably a value 2 ½ to 3 million dollars. Depending on what ends up going on the properties, it may be totally lost in value and bulldozed. This road going through with current land uses, which is why we want to wait for the land use study, does have an impact. The east edge of this part of the road is projected to have 12,200 cars coming across it downloading from the whole western part of this development. That makes a big difference what can be put on our property if we are limited to single family residential. Or multi-family. You know it’s difficult to put similar structures on as what exists on my property with 12,000 cars going on this road, on this road and on this road. We’re looking at trying to be flexible. We’ve looked at and said we may end up losing that property to do what’s right and best interest for the city, and that’s why we’re waiting for the land use to see if there’s a higher and better use for it. We do, or my points over the last 2 years, I haven’t brought this up but it hasn’t been brought up. The new plan showing no north collector suggests it’s going to go through my property and I’ve seen recently picture, I think you saw even tonight of a proposal that they showed where the Degler’s property is being developed. They have a road going up there but it doesn’t connect to Lyman, and the reason that back in August that this was put where it was in part was because of access points to Lyman. Just recently I’ve been told that perhaps we’ll connect it up right here by the house. Well, is that fair to dump or move all the traffic when it doesn’t have to from one property through another? My point being here is that there’s a lot of questions dealing with this north collector which is part of this project. Where is it? I don’t know. This is what you authorized and approved. It’s not on the current plan and I raised the issue and I haven’t gotten a real answer. And I think it’s only appropriate that, in that it will have an impact on the property we have existing and may in fact bring that down to zero. That would make us contributing a larger amount of money at 2 ½ to 3 million dollars than any of the other properties as far as assessments. So yes, I am concerned because passing this other part of the road tonight before a land use study is there, will have the impact on the road that will continue on and ultimately the use of the property. Thank you for your time. I’d like to say as well…the letter and I want to make sure that that’s part of the public record so I’ll give that to Todd right now or in a minute here. Okay. If you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Dorsey? At this point. Staff response to a couple issues raised. Kate Aanenson: I can talk about the market study a little bit. The other projects that are coming forward on the 2005 MUSA are consistent with the zoning that’s in place, or the land use that’s in place. The only request for a land use differential or change, which you have the most discretion on, would be the Fox and the Dorsey parcels. They want to do the commercial. That was one of the reasons why we undertook the study. There is no more moratorium in place. What we’ve advised people that want to come in and change a land use, again where you have the most discretion, we’ve advised them at this time we’re under a study and we would probably recommend now we cannot stop somebody from applying. We’ve had a couple that have come through and asked for commercial the council’s recently seen. Some that are residential. That down zone. That would change the land use. This council’s asked us, on that last one that we actually brought in sooner, we did a land use amendment again to evaluate that. But again there City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 11 is no moratorium in place. The other ones are consistent with the designation. They had dual guiding. We spent some time talking about that but they are consistent. And then when we get the market study back in April, it doesn’t magically, you know we’re shooting for April 15th to become adopted. We still have to have a series of hearings. We said we committed to take that out to the community to look at. Just because we get some certain findings, we have to kind of go back and reassess what our goals were, our values. We kind of…that would be a segway into updating the comprehensive plan in 2008. There might be some issues that we want to move on sooner but again there needs to be some community input, so even though we get this information mid-April, there’s still sequencing of time as far as public hearings and all that before that would become effective so, that might be a year. It might be less. It might be more, so again that’s information to help us make good land use decisions. I think that’s all I had to say on that. Paul Oehme: Yeah, I’d just like to comment just on the north collector road that Mr. Dorsey had brought up. It’s not part of the project. The north collector road. This project we’re discussing tonight is the east/west collector road, and the north collector road that was identified in the AUAR will come in under development projects, and we’ll discuss that connection to Lyman Boulevard at that time where the best location for those connection points should be. Councilman Lundquist: Well we’ve looked at plans along the way of all kinds of different alternatives for that north collector, correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: I mean it could go here. It could go, I mean it could go nowhere if we opted and there’s nothing, as Mr. Dorsey was showing us, I mean there’s nothing that precludes what we’re looking at doing tonight from that north collector road still going through the Degler property, if that’s where it works out. I mean there’s nothing that we do, would do tonight to preclude that from happening if that’s the best spot for it. Paul Oehme: Correct. There still could be access on the Degler site. There’s future access farther to the east that could provide for that connection. Councilman Lundquist: Could go there. Could go east. Could happen a lot of ways yet depending on what happens in the rest of the developments, is that a fair statement? Paul Oehme: That’s a fair statement. Rick Dorsey: I’d like to address that. Number one is the north collector would be requiring a 60 foot right-of-way. Any connection right now being proposed through the Degler property doesn’t show that as an intersection. Being down here, it’s not 60 feet. So that would preclude, without cost, changing that. Further, the idea of draining or moving traffic to the east through other ways, we have put a proposal in front of the staff, back in December. Yes, there’s no moratorium. However staff was not suggesting we take and spend the time with them, or they weren’t going to support it until the feasibility study was done. We feel that it’s the best use of the property. We also feel that it may be the most valuable piece of property for the city in the City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 12 long term as far as what could go there. To take and set the stage where another property will get a go ahead before we have that knowledge, perhaps through the Degler property, and saying that they could go east. I’d like to know where it could go east. This is very steep going up to the current Lyman Boulevard. The only places are down here, and to take and bring any traffic of a couple hundred homes through the middle of our’s will preclude us from looking at the options we’re waiting for. We’re waiting for them because the City ordered that information and we think that, in that that is then ordered, that that’s the desire of the City. That they’re thinking about it and looking at it, and to take and not waste 2 more weeks, you know really do we need to have the road in by this year? Maybe there’s some developers that do, but they could still be serviced in the meantime in other ways. There’s no reason that the Town and Country property couldn’t, I mean by the end of this year they’re not going to have all these houses in here that need this big road. They might have a dozen houses in. Spec homes, models, something like that. Same with each of the others so it’s even looked at 12 months before you put the road in, if it happened that way. I think the other project still could go forward, and should the land use show that the properties stay the same, then I have a bigger problem with the road as designed because part of the comprehensive plan for the City of Chanhassen is to try and not have environmental issues or traffic issues of one development having an impact on another. I find 12,000 cars coming across here, when there’s other ways to mitigate that traffic, to be not a fair situation for our property. The calming of the traffic, I’ve talked about this before. Our issue wasn’t calming the traffic. It was part of it but it was also looking at it, but 12,000 cars changes the use of the land. There’s going to be noise issues that are going to be there, and I believe in the AUAR study there’s information in there about noise issues and with the decibels that will be generated with that traffic, you’d have to be at least 150 feet away from the road to put in any single family homes. So I mean, from the standpoint if you’re not going to wait for the study, there still needs to be more done to look at this road before it goes forward because it’s not taking into account the policies of the city at this point in time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Yes, one question perhaps from a follow-up there in terms of location of the road coming up to the property. That’s fine. North or south, I mean what I’m understanding here is that this is being proposed now at the desire of the property owners to the east because they don’t know what they’re going to do from a development standpoint, so obviously there are questions there on their side, but where else along, if we draw a line east, or north/south, because this was a east/west collector being developed as a part of the AUAR, why did you pick the spot that you did? Let me start with that. Paul Oehme: Well several reasons. To the south of where we’re planning to terminate the road at this time, there’s a big wooded area with steep grades. It’s very difficult to build a roadway section through that section of land. To the north is Mr. Dorsey’s property. His property’s currently in Ag Preserve and like we had discussed earlier, we’re not going to be developing any property on, or developing that area or grading or anything, construction on this property until probably 2011 at the earliest. So we also have concerns with the services provided to this area to future extension. Due to the grades in this area, we are maxing out the depth of our sewer mains to get a gravity sewer main to our lift station on Lyman Boulevard. The topography is subject where the location we have the road currently is the best location to put the sewer main. You typically want to put the sewer mains underneath the roadway to limit the amount of drainage utility easements that you need so, ease of maintenance, those type of things, so those are the City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 13 kind of things that went into our decision to try to, to construct a road or plan for the road at this location as proposed. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Public hearing is still open, if there are others who would like to address the council. Jeff Fox: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is Jeff Fox representing the Jeff and Terry Fox piece, south of Lyman and Fox Family, that’s 4 brothers and a mother, the piece south of that to begin with. I want to start out with first of all we emailed a letter off to council members that you were cc’d on that we concur with each and every statement within that letter and agree to it. Second of all I have a letter I want to present tonight to you as council members and mayor received this morning on your e-mail. I don’t know if you had a chance to look at that to begin with. I want to make it a matter of public record. Along with that I have set up a notice of, that we’re appealing the assessments on the sewer and the water side to begin with. I want to address to the one issue that sticks in my mind right now that I heard Paul talk a bit about the north collector road. Where it comes into the Fox piece and being a treed area. We’re trying to review that treed area. We spent a lot of time in there having this reviewed right now by an arborist as far as what we have are really live trees in there, and what’s dead stuff in there and what’s got steep slopes in there. Okay, to look at what’s really in the long run that tree preservation might be re-looked at as far as total acreage from what it is today, around 20 acres to begin with. And our concern, when I looked at this road and where it ends, it doesn’t give us much flexibility to continue to, if we stay with residential because that’s the guiding the City chooses to stay with, or if we end up possibly getting a mixed MXD project such as maybe a retail project that we might choose to make the road go south. Okay, because we do have that opportunity within our own parcel because as it’s stated to us by city staff and it will be our cost to build the road to the east, less probably MSA and I’m hoping at least sewer and water over sizing funds available for part of the sewer and water that go on our piece. So by finishing the road to where you’re at, you limit us there to begin with. Second of all, if the road was to go where it’s at, and keep it in the residential, or MXD plan, there’s excess land that we’re leaving on the table to begin with. Up and adjacent to the wetlands on the northwest corner of the Fox piece. I agree with Rick in one sense that what does 60 days, 90 days mean as far as looking at receiving the retail or land use study because then we also have another project that will have some bearing on that. That was the Sever Peterson piece. That was dual guided, industrial and residential. And one of the issues that the City chose to do, the staff, is try to move the industrial over onto our piece so we really went to bat to try to find a way to give us an opportunity to bring something together that we have prepared for and within your minutes, going back and looking over previous council meetings, you did them preliminary approval for one concept wise, but subject to knowing if we need to have industrial, that we do, we need to find a new location for it. That hasn’t been designed yet. That hasn’t been chosen as far as what the retail study’s going to show you. I don’t know if that comes up within the retail study, if industrial is something that still needs to be within the city itself. So I think it’s more than just the easterly portion that are waiting for this land use study. I think there’s other pieces within the 2005. I’m not saying that the City Council here tonight is behind, interested to see retail down there. We don’t know that. Only time will tell based upon studies. Based upon your opinions and also community input… If it is that way, I think it would be best to try to put something together City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 14 that’s beneficial to the whole area. And like I say once again, I appreciate the opportunity as well as leave these letters of record and notice of appeal. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments or response? If not, we’ll continue with the public hearing. Kevin Clark: Mayor Furlong and council members. My name is Kevin Clark, Vice President of Land Development for Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company and I just want to start off by thanking you again for your endorsement of our project earlier this evening. We certainly looking forward to our first project in the city of Chanhassen. It is with many thanks to yourselves, the Planning Commission, Parks Commission, City Manager Todd Gerhardt and city staff that over these last 3 plus years we’ve been able to innovate and I think work through a number of issues and plan a project that we certainly are looking forward to doing and I’m sure that you are too. And we’re encouraging you this evening to move forward with this portion of the project. This is a key piece of getting this whole AUAR area off and started and the work of the city engineer and consultants and ourself, working along to make this project start yet this year was all our goal as we started into this process over a year ago. So I want to thank you again for your approval and I’d encourage you to move forward with this, the second phase of this big, vast improvement project that’s been successfully initiated this winter. The Phase I and I think it’s come in on time, under budget and we probably look forward to the same results in moving forward with this phase so thank you again. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else who wishes to comment during public hearing tonight? John Chadwick: Good evening Mayor, council and staff. My name is John Chadwick. I reside at 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington. Representing the Peterson project and been tracking this thing for a couple-three years. I think the family’s owned the property for years and years. They’re professional farmers like our family too. First I say I certainly support the idea of getting this project rolling and appreciate all the thought and concern that has gone into that. The notion of stopping the project where you did, I think that’s a pretty novel idea and let people sort things out as they go along, makes pretty good sense so I certainly support that. It’s never perfect for anybody but it’s a pretty good compromise situation and I applaud that and give the other land owners a chance to figure out what they need to do and when to do it. I think that’s good. In all of life there’s touch down points. Where’s my property touch this other property? Where do I connect to the road? Where’s the sewer? Where’s the water? What’s the elevation? Then you have to work with it, and that’s just kind of the way it is and the way God laid out the land. So hopefully that works out for everybody. Appreciate all the flexibility to date. Lastly, up until today we’ve had a wonderful winter construction season and Ames is on the river, it’s way out there. They’re in advance of everything they need to do. They’re holding up for money, not for weather or anything else. They just don’t have funding to keep ramping through so I’m thinking that’s going to be a big win for the City with the big army of yellow iron, and I’ve said that before when I’m up here. There’s a lot of iron out there. Every, all the other contractors know they’re sitting there with a big fleet, already mobilized. They could just about off road it to the site. They wouldn’t really have much mobilization. Just you know head east or head north. Wherever, which ever direction you need to go. So I would encourage go forward. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 15 My background is in the county, not in engineering, you probably figured that out so you know if you can cut a deal or save a buck here or there, I think that’s a great idea. And again, thanks for your time this evening. Support the project and you know I told Sever, if things don’t work out. Don’t worry about it. He’s out of the country. He must have agreed with me so I thank all of you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussions? Rick Dorsey: Rick Dorsey again. I would like to just put a map in front of you so you can see the alternatives being proposed, and then throw something out to you. This is where the north road, all going through my property would be. Putting this intersection here, if you look at it, it adds no value to the Fox property, coming off of it. We had proposed right here as a spot for a connection point, which doesn’t work well for a north collector coming off of that point, but that would service the Fox property and my property better. The location here cuts off a big chunk of property. What good is that? No good at all. There’s no need for it. Historically roads go on property lines so that you share in them. That’s what happened here on Sever Peterson’s property and Town and Country property. Originally it kind of cut across here and it was looked at and said let’s split it down the middle. I don’t have a problem with that. If that’s what has to happen. Putting the intersection here though does not do us any good in our property whatsoever. And putting it where it was, which is many months were spent discussing this, putting it here. The reason why it bumps out here is because there’s wetlands going into the Degler property and into the Fox property here. There is none in mine. Putting it around here wastes that land. It takes it with a 60 foot wide right-of-way that would go through there. It makes it virtually useless. From the standpoint of me and the standpoint of tax base in the community. I could say that what would work, and following up what Jeff said, stopping the road maybe a little sooner. Maybe at the bridge until we work out what goes there. That can work. I mean it helps you to get the other projects going. We’re not here to stop the project. What we are here though is to protect the opportunities for our properties as well. Just because we didn’t start tutors before the 2005 MUSA area was going to be talked about, so we would like to look at that as a possibility before seeing it because if it stops right here, this is where that ends up. That doesn’t do any good. The plan we proposed has an intersection here that would work for us. It does not have one there. So in fairness, looking at it, we do have a proposal that’s in on the table. If it was all residential and not retail, it would probably be in front of you. If it didn’t have a component but we feel that the component of retail is a valuable part of the community so, you know we’d like to have you look at that again. I thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Dorsey, before you, put that one back on. Just had on there. Just point out on that one the road right now is terminating on your property line? Rick Dorsey: Right through here. Right at this border line of the Fox…which would put it right where this intersection would be. If it was there. However the plan is showing it connecting up here. So if you put that in there, you’re not going to put another intersection there…and that isn’t what was agreed upon, back in August. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 16 Councilman Peterson: Paul, if we terminate it there, we’re not putting the necessarily an intersection in. We’re just terminating it there, isn’t that correct? Paul Oehme: Yeah, that’s correct. We’re terminating at the property line. That allows for Mr. Degler to plat his property too and develop his piece. Councilman Peterson: So there could in theory be an intersection right there? Going right north. Rick Dorsey: Along the property line, if you don’t build another one there, or if you put one right, if you put one here you’re going to be too close together probably at that intersection. Paul Oehme: I don’t know what the spacing is right now at that location but, you know we had always envisioned two access points to the east of Degler’s. We can still work with where those touch down points are in the future. We’re not talking about that piece of roadway at this time. We’re talking about everything, everything west of the Fox piece. Rick Dorsey: I think Paul you’re missing out on the point. If you come up to the property line and you align with this road right here right now, that eliminates flexibility. We can’t have another, if you look at what we’re dealt with and we’ve talked about this many times before. This intersection is where it’s going to be because of the distance from Powers. It goes right into a wetland as it is, and we’re having to work around that. It means that the Fox’s are going to have to delineate a wetland and pay for the cost to make it solid road. At the soonest point in his property, because he’s landlocked otherwise. Across my property, if you put it there, it takes and burns up land there. No value at all. What this wetland is actually an agricultural wetland that probably should be mitigated and have the road go through and put a T intersection and go right up the property line. I mean it’s there. But my point is, in moving forward with this, in that it’s on this map where it is, that’s where I would estimate that we’re going to end up with it and it does not fit in with our plans that we’re working on. So I ask you to look at that and say, we could stop it back here. Somewhere back here and not put an access point until we determine that. We don’t need to know that today. There’s no plan in for Degler’s at this point. My understanding is they’re going to be coming in with one soon, but at this point there’s not. And to move forward with your project you know now, I mean I think that could work. The feasibility study, or the land use study will be here shortly. You can be looking at that. Determine what we can do going forward. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then Paul, what is the harm in doing that? Paul Oehme: Well I think. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know you said it before but. Paul Oehme: It limits the Degler’s from fully looking at how their property can build right now. Maybe I can show you. One of the exhibits that Mr. Horn presented earlier this evening. You know there is still flexibility on where those. Todd Gerhardt: Paul, can you move it over and have Nann zoom in on it. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 17 Paul Oehme: Yeah, if you can just zoom in on this location right here. So this is just a concept plan yet. Nothing has been approved on this piece of property yet. But in order for the property to begin development, and to look at how the piece can be laid out, you know the intersection here is, has always been, well it has been determined to be a good location. We do have some steeper grades up in this area to get sight lines at that location. There still is an opportunity to look at the north road as it comes through the Degler site. Again we’re not looking at specifically that development at this time. But in order for this piece of property to develop, you know it’s envisioned that this area here be one of the first stages to be constructed at this time. And it’s our intent or it would be wise to construct as much of this road now and put in the utilities as we can due to the fact that houses perpetually could be up against the roadway and any future roadway improvements at that point potentially could impact and you know, and be more difficult for building the future, plus destruction to the property owners so. Councilman Lundquist: Paul what was the, a couple of weeks ago we had a subdivision that was just 3 or 4 lots where the applicant was looking for cutting out the street and the utilities about halfway through the lot and not continuing all the way through anymore. Kate Aanenson: Orchard Green. We made them extend to the property…and I think that’s part of the issue too that we talked about. It’s standard policy to connect the streets. We get the similar problem, a little bit of why this intersection ended up where it did. There’s very challenging topography. Looked at this AUAR. This intersection needs to be here because we need to be able to get to this property, Jeurissen piece which is currently accessed off Pioneer. This is where we’re doing the wetland restoration in this area, so this intersection on the south leg always needed to be here, and we moved through looking at the properties and the efficiencies of making that work, it appeared that to make that a full intersection seemed to be the most efficient. Again it’s our job to tie properties together, going back to what Councilman Lundquist had said is that, also on this side we’ll be tying that back up to the MnDot piece, and tying that next street will also stub into the Fox piece which will have to accommodate and we’ve talked about that too. Again all the pieces have to fit. On Pioneer Path there is a way that they’re obligated, they work it into their plat. That was part of the AUAR, this connection and they are providing that back to that connection. It actually goes all the way down to Pioneer Trail, and that was a requirement that they build that so they’re accommodating that in Phase I also. So everybody else is kind of taking that part of, kind of showing that part of the pain to make all those projects connect to each other, as we try to do. Connect neighborhoods and provide the access. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, could you show the wetland area between the Dorsey and Degler. Kate Aanenson: This piece right here. Todd Gerhardt: So that would prevent us from taking the road straight north through that wetland. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And I think as Paul indicated, we’re always looking at those trees. Those trees have always been fluid so. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 18 Rick Dorsey: Since we’re looking at plans that aren’t approved yet, I’d like to show you our plan, in fairness. That we presented to staff. Would you zoom in on this for me please? Kate Aanenson: Are you upside down? There you go, yeah. Rick Dorsey: Zoom in a little more. What we proposed to put forth is to bring more pedestrian friendliness into the area and create neighborhoods that were built around an interior…creating a pedestrian parkway we’ve proposed. That’s a great expense to us to do it. We’re not trying to maximize the number of units on our property. We’re not trying to do anything but bring a really nice development to the city. We put this forward and it has a mixed use component to it because with all the traffic, who wants to live on a busy road and that’s why we looked at the idea of bringing an internal park. Concept was, everything would connect. This would be a bridge here that would go underneath. All these areas would connect so this would be a pocket neighborhood going off of the road as was proposed August 22nd, to come down the property line. We would create a situation to be able to utilize the land down here and connect all these areas up so that they could connect up to the Bluff Creek corridor. Mayor Furlong: And how does that affect this touch down point that’s being proposed this evening by the staff? Rick Dorsey: The City wants to, the proposal is to put a touch down point right here, crossing across here which is our means of connecting up to it without necessarily… Mayor Furlong: My understanding was they’re bringing it up to the property line to the west of your finger right now. Kate Aanenson: Right. Rick Dorsey: They were talking about, this is the wetland right here that you’re talking about. And they’re talking about going around it up to here. Kate Aanenson: They’re not building that part of the road. Rick Dorsey: You’re not today, I understand that. What I’m saying is if the intersection is put here, which is what is in front of the staff or in front of us as where they’d want to put the, Kate this is from you. This is from Paul too. Kate Aanenson: They’re not building that part of the road though. They’re not building that part of the road tonight. Rick Dorsey: I understand that. What my point is, is that in your putting forth a proposal here. Then you have to have an intersection here. I don’t have a problem with that. The point is, connecting it up somewhere so all of this, as this is designed, it’s not going to all come out this one exit. It’s going to have to go somewhere. The idea that it’s going to come out this exit here because they’re not lining up there, and being told that this would be the only point on Lyman City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 19 over here that’s possible to connect up means all this traffic will flow through what our plan is. It would flow through here where we’re trying to create internal parks, and dedicating land to make it a nicer neighborhood. Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question then Mr. Dorsey is with regard to the project that’s being considered this evening, which brings the road up to the western property line of I believe the Fox, or the Fox Family property, one of the two, how does what, I mean earlier you had your, you said where the connection is on that map right there, you didn’t want it there. You wanted it a little bit further east of there. I mean how does the project that we’re looking at tonight that keeps this project to the western property line, I’m trying to understand. Rick Dorsey: Okay. If they’re looking at this being the intersection, that or that, our design here does not show a connection that would go across this water way and go up to Lyman at any point. So what it would do is they’re enforcing a north collector road through in that area would negate the possibilities that we have for the property. It would separate off more of the property so again you’re breaking up smaller neighborhoods. The type of uses we’re looking at are not the same as what they’re looking at there, so it makes sense to put the road on the property line, would create a buffer between land uses. At least provide that opportunity, taking more of the land by moving such as here and not saying you have to go all the way across, and the topography, you have to know the topography too. That’s why this design was created the way it was. This is very steep along here and very steep along here so you can’t just go through there with the road. Mayor Furlong: And I guess I’m going to get back to the question of bringing the road as the project is currently proposed up to that property line. We haven’t seen anything on the Degler property or these properties, you know. Why no flexibility…? Rick Dorsey: Okay, let me ask, okay let me ask a question. The design of the road as it goes forward. If this is approved, my understanding is that the balance would follow as such that’s showing here. Mayor Furlong: The balance of what is the question. Rick Dorsey: When the rest of the east/west collector has to be completed. There has to be some plan. Councilman Lundquist: I think at this point it can be put anywhere. Rick Dorsey: Well is that what you’re saying or not? That’s what we want to know. The feasibility study… Mayor Furlong: Let staff answer the question with regard to the AUAR addressed the purpose of this road to begin with. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 20 Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, we’re going to work with the Dorsey’s and Fox on any type of development that they bring in. There needs to be a connection, an east/west connection to Powers. Rick Dorsey: We understand that. Todd Gerhardt: That doesn’t mean it has to be a straight line, you know. It may loop through your’s. We’ll work with you on what you bring in. At this point all we’re doing is bringing it up to the property line. There’s only one spot to bring it. I think Jeff and Mr. Dorsey, you agree that there’s only one spot to bring that road to this point. And as you bring your development in, as we do the market retail study, we’re going to work with you on that. We may not agree but we’ll listen to you and sit down and do what’s best for the entire area. As Mr. Degler sells his property and Pemtom comes through, we’ll work with them. I think they’ve met with you so you know when we come to that crossing, we’ll sit down and talk about it. Rick Dorsey: Again we’re missing a couple points okay. I’ll try to do it one more time and then I’ll sit down. Mayor Furlong: That’s fine and understand from a public hearing, we’re trying to listen. May not agree but we’re trying to listen. Rick Dorsey: Well you’ve got to get the information clear. Mayor Furlong: Trying to understand. Thank you. Rick Dorsey: What we’re looking at, according to my reading of the feasibility study as it says that there will be bidding for the remaining portion done by July, 2007. Okay? That might not line up with what’s there, but it is in the feasibility study. In that that’s there, it’s suggesting there’s a road planned… Mayor Furlong: Now wait a minute. Wait a minute. You raised a question on that schedule. What did that? Rick Dorsey: On the schedule you sent out to us. Mayor Furlong: On the construction schedule or the project schedule? Todd Gerhardt: We have no plans to finish the road in 2007. Plans and specs will not be done on Mr. Fox’s property. What you see before you is what plans and specs would be. Mayor Furlong: This speaks to the complete for this bid package as of July, ’07, which is everything east, or excuse me west of the properties. Rick Dorsey: I missed that, I apologize. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 21 Todd Gerhardt: Everything east of where the road is touching down now would have to have a separate feasibility study. Separate project number. We’d have to come back and have council authorized plans and specs again, and let a completely different project. Rick Dorsey: Okay. Okay. Biggest thing I guess is just to have the flexibility where this is and to know that in going forward with this point, that this is not the understanding. That this is an intersection here with a north collector road going off of it, and wasting that land, number one. Or limiting our flexibility into, and a possibility is always there in talking with the Degler’s too. Maybe this should be mitigated and it should go straight through. I don’t know. We just want to make sure that that flexibility is there when we work together with them. Mayor Furlong: Well I think as Mr. Gerhardt said, the staff will work with you. We’ll listen. We’ll try to accommodate. It’s been my experience that they try to do that. Again they may not agree with the property owners. I think if we had the number of property owners that didn’t agree with staff’s recommendation, it’d be a pretty long line outside the door. At the same time I think what I heard them say is that they’re willing to listen and because of the reasons that you and the Fox, the Fox’s have brought up about not going forward at this time because you want flexibility is one of the reasons I hear staff is proposing to stop it at the western property line. So okay, alright? If there’s any other new comments. I’d like to try to move on here Mr. Fox. Jeff Fox: Real short. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Jeff Fox: You asked a question I don’t think Rick answered properly. The reason for stopping at the westerly side of Degler’s instead of stopping back at the intersection. To allow flexibility to know where that road’s going to go. That road, depending on what the market study says or what the City chooses to do with the Fox and Dorsey piece, it may swing down and then head back up. As the road comes up to the property line where it’s at, it somewhat dictates where we’re going to have to take the road from there. That’s why we’re looking at the thought of allowing it to be stopped back a ways allows some flexibility to where the road would go. It might not go out to the property line of the Dorsey property. It might swing down. Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question I would ask then of staff, for I think is that the Degler property there? Is that the one we’re looking at? Kate Aanenson: Well the bigger one. Also the Jeurissen piece. This property is going forward. It’s going to the Planning Commission and that piece also needs to get access via this segment of road, so the pending assessments that you’re looking at tonight are at least part… Mayor Furlong: If the road construction was stopped part way through the Degler property to leave the flexibility of certain sense of degrees, wouldn’t that limit then the Degler property with what they could do within their own property until that final route was decided? City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 22 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, as they’ve indicated, City Engineer said too, this is their first phases, so they need to back onto that collector road so it would eliminate the potential there to a particular development. Paul Oehme: And the constructability of that second, of extending that road farther to the east is problematic too. The sewer in that location is going to be 40 feet deep, and it’s going to be a lot of material that’s going to have to be moved to get that sewer in there. I don’t see building up tight against that right-of-way being a good alternative at this time and then future, you know future. Mayor Furlong: A future project? Paul Oehme: A future project extending the sewer and water, and buildings. Jeff Fox: We’re ready to go when the City’s ready to make a decision on what the guiding could be within this property, so we’re not in the back. We are ready to move. And it’s not a matter that we’re, our hands are tied right now. That’s the way we look at it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Public hearing is still open. Are there other individuals or interested parties that would like to address the council on this matter? Okay, seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Peterson was not present during the vote. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Furlong: Any follow-up questions for staff at this point? Based upon the comments received at the public hearing. Any follow up questions from staff? At this point. Okay. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Just a question Mr. Mayor then on the next steps on this piece is to let that project and move? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think the staff request here, or the request for action on our part would be to order the improvements, is that correct? Roger Knutson: Mayor, I believe there’s an attached resolution which would order the improvements and order the project and order preparation of plans and specifications, which is attached to your packet. Councilman Lundquist: Yes, okay. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Discussions. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I think as we’ve heard from Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Fox and the other property owners that, I mean there’s certain things that we know. We know there’s going to be a touch down point on Audubon. We know there’s going to be a touch down point on City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 23 Powers. And for myself personally, I think waiting for the retail market study makes sense when we have some question about which way we will go. We’ve got the Town and Country project that’s moved through. We’ve got the Sever Peterson project that’s been at preliminary. I can’t see anything where waiting 60 or 90 days for that, plus all the public comment period would make me change my mind on what those projects would be. So I don’t see a need to wait there. Waiting for the road, you know it’s just our practice, and I think the prudent thing to do for a variety of reasons to bring that road up to that property line. And although you know I want to be sensitive to the Dorsey’s and Fox’s property, for what they can do. I mean we’ve got to pick a spot somewhere on there and to stop that in the middle of the Degler property you know just isn’t something that makes a lot of sense to me. So I think we’ve got flexibility to do a lot of things, yet on that and in fact you know the plans that Mr. Dorsey put up there show that road connection there as well so they’ve clearly thought about that as well too. So I believe that in order to provide the services, which is what our duty is to provide infrastructure and public utilities and public services to those projects so that they can develop, that’s our duty to do and we’ve got some developments that we’ve approved that are ready to go and construction season is nearing quickly in this wonderful state we live in, it’s not all that long so I think it’s, I’m prepared to move forward. That we’ve got the information that we need. Understand there’s a lot of work to be done on the east portion of that yet and I look forward to when that does come in, going through the same process. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments, discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I feel, believe or not I feel like some good things have happened here tonight. I think there’s some good open up discussion about intentions and, intentions of the City and I think it’s important that we do all work together with the Dorsey’s and Fox’s to make sure that they have the same flexibility that other people have had with their developments when they are, when they can and are ready to move forward. I’m also prepared tonight to move forward with this. I don’t see any reason to hold the Degler’s or Town and Country or the Peterson’s kind of in limbo for right now. But I do really want to stress that I don’t want to see the Fox’s or Dorsey’s shut out from what they can do, so I do hope that we can have more discussions like this and try to come to some sort of agreement. Mutual agreement so they can do what they want and we can still be happy with what they’re doing. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think following the same theme, I empathize with a couple of the thoughts as it relates to number one, in the study. And wanting to have that. We all want to have that but it’s not going to be epiphany of well here we’re going to have to do this here and here and here. It’s going to be a tool that we’re going to use that will evolve the decisions that we make in the coming months and years. It’s not going to, when we get it in 2 weeks it’s going to be an aha. It’s going to be something that we’re going to be sorting through for a long time. So with that I think that what we’ve tried to do with stopping the road where it is, I think it’s a reasonable accommodation to both the Dorsey’s and the Fox’s. Knowing that if we truly have to have that intersection where it is, to access points both north and south, then stopping it there versus bringing it up to the property line is really irrelevant. That what we said here tonight is that we’re going to work with the property owners to find an appropriate spot, if there is a City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 24 defined need for a north/south collector again so I think that, I think that the City has certainly went on record numerous times before through it’s own actions, work with land owners and developers to do the right thing. So I’m confident that that will happen in this case too, so that being said, I think it’s reasonable that we go ahead. I can only assume that if we don’t go ahead and we do another part of it, the cost in another year are going to be higher. And again I don’t see a compelling reason to stop that so that being said, I think we should move forward. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts are similar I think to those expressed from my fellow members of the council. To continue with where Councilman Peterson finished with the cost. The cost, overall cost I believe of dividing this east/west collector into two segments versus one creates more cost for all parties involved, including the City. I think as a council we have tried to, and I know staff works diligently to minimize costs. In this situation however, the reason that we’re accepting that, a two phased project is because of the desire of the property owners to not go forward at this point with regard to the east/west collector going all the way over to Powers Boulevard. While that creates cost, I think at the beginning when back, I want to say now a couple, maybe even 3 years ago when the city staff really started looking diligently at this 2005 MUSA area with the AUAR and others, we knew there were a lot of issues that were going to come up but it was the council and staff and city’s goal to be a development project as opposed to a city forced project. As a city we can facilitate, minimize overall costs to sharing those with property owners. A good example of that is the AUAR itself, which looks at overall planning. But at the same time it wasn’t the desire to force anything on anybody. Is there, by going forward with this project tonight, bringing this road up to the eastern property line of the Degler’s, does it eliminate some movement north and south a little bit? Yes it does. Sure it does, but what the issue of waiting, I’ve heard a couple weeks. I’ve heard 60-90 days. I think Councilman Peterson said it best, that when this, the market study, the retail market study that we looked at, and I think staff mentioned it earlier tonight too. This is not something that once we get it we’re going to start changing land uses the next council meeting. Quite the opposite. It’s in preparation for and one of the steps moving forward to our 2008 comprehensive plan update. Literally what happened, given the construction season, as Councilman Lundquist said, is that if we continue to wait and delay, we will have to start calling this the 2007 MUSA area, and I don’t think that’s fair to the other property owners. And so what we try to do as much as we can, create or allow future development in the properties, the Fox and Degler properties which I heard tonight a commitment from staff to work with them. I agree. I’ve seen that commitment being lived up to time and again historically and I expect that to occur again. There’s not always agreement between the City and the Planning Commission and staff and council with the property owners, but we generally find a way to come to some reasonable terms for all concerned and I would certainly expect that would occur again here. So for reasons previously stated by my fellow council members I won’t repeat, I believe it makes sense to go forward this evening with the action requested, and with the plans that are before us. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move approval of the resolution ordering the 2005 MUSA improvements Bid Package #2, Project #06-05 as included in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second please? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 25 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Resolution #2006-20: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for City Project No. 06-05, Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone for your comments this evening. Let’s move on now to the next item. PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM NPDES PHASE II, MS4 PERMIT. Don Asleson: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council members for the opportunity to report on the 2005 NPDES MS4 Permit and progress on the storm water pollution prevention program. I may be a new face to some of you. I’m your Natural Resources Technician, Don Asleson. Just introduce myself. By law we are required to have a public hearing and receive public comment on our surface water pollution prevention program progress. This presentation will be split between Lori and I. I’ll first give a summary of our progress over the last year highlighting our accomplishments followed by Lori presenting some current permit requirements and changes that will occur with the next permit cycle. Over the last few months staff has been soliciting input from the city departments and consultants to track progress that has been made in the 2005 towards the goals listed in the storm water pollution prevention program required by the NPDES MS4 permit. This City NPDES permit requires the City of Chanhassen establish six minimum control measures as part of our storm water pollution prevent program. The minimum controls are broken into the following categories. The first one is public education and outreach. Second, public participation and involvement. Third, illicit discharge detection and elimination. Fourth, construction site storm water runoff control. Fifth, post construction storm water management. And sixth, pollution prevention and good housekeeping. Many of the 2005 accomplishments fall into multiple categories. What we’ll do is we’ll go through our 2005 progress, some of our key progress through 2005. First off, you’re probably all familiar with the surface water management plan update. The consultant has finished collecting data as far as location, size and condition on over 6,000 storm water structures during the surface water management plan update. We discovered a total of 3 illicit discharges, 2 of which were found during…in inventory. One additional was discovered through other means in 2005. Finished our retaining assessment method. MN-RAM assessments for 400 plus wetlands. Located and inventoried over 350 storm water ponds. Update will also assist the City in determining where additional ordinances are needed or where current ordinances are lacking. Carver Soil and Water Conservation District assisted us with soil and erosion sediment control plans so all the inspections on 22 development sites. And performed about 100 documented construction site inspections during the 2005 construction season. Meeting was held to discuss procedures internally for spill response and illicit discharge in our storm water system. Attendants included members of the Fire Department, Street Department and our Water Resource Coordinator. Presentation in 2005 was also made to 2,000, or to the City Council and a public hearing was held back in January. Presentations to Chaska Middle School, St. Hubert’s and Bluff Creek City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 26 Elementary were also given. Chanhassen residents made over 5,000 visits to the Carver County Environmental Center, total of 5,067. The Boy Scout troops actually collected 327 Christmas trees this year. They were very busy picking those up this year. Street sweeping activities resulted in removal of approximately 595 tons of sand and debris from the streets. That’s down from last year of 1,732 tons. 27 tons of phosphorous free fertilizer was used in municipal parks in 2005. That’s 1 ½ tons less than in 2004. For 2006 we did plan on taking some soil samplings so we can possibly even reduce that some more where we can reduce it. Recycled over 850 gallons of waste oil from our municipal operations. That’s less than 2004. In addition we maintained our city web page and continued our attendance at the Metro Watershed Partners meetings, which is a regional storm water education group. The final report format was received last Tuesday from MPCA. It’s not due til June 30th 2000. We anticipate submitting the final report to council at a future consent agenda so that you can take a look at the final document before you approve it and send it on to MPCA. At this time I’m going to turn it over to Lori so she can talk a little bit about how the permit is right now and what changes she sees in the near future. Councilman Lundquist: Just a question Don. The limited, or smaller amount of phosphorous fertilizer in the, especially the waste oil. Is that because we’re changing oil less in the city vehicles or? Don Asleson: I think it has to do with when they actually pump the tanks out. Like maybe last year we had one additional pump. I think it’s like a 300 gallon tank so if it filled up one additional time last year than it did this year, or maybe it just, the way it overlaps year to year could change so maybe next year it will be up 300 gallons. So I don’t know that it’s necessarily reduced. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that’s something that we’re just required to report on because it’s a waste that we generate? Lori Haak: That’s right, and it has a high potential for being a discharge into a storm sewer, something like that. Now that Don has outlined a few of our accomplishments in 2005, wanting to just give you a really brief summary of what we can expect in 2006 and beyond. This is something that staff has been watching real closely because the way that storm water is managed and regulated in the state of Minnesota is really changing. I guess not only in the state of Minnesota but also throughout the country. New mandates by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, I’ll spare you the acronyms on that Tom. I’m sorry, Mayor Furlong. So generally there’s two major changes with the new permit. There is a new permit that the City will be required to apply for, and that deadline is June 1st, 2006. We will be required to resubmit our storm water pollution prevention plan and our program and make any modifications we need at that time, so that’s something that staff will be working on. One of the things that counts as a requirement as part of that is that the Pollution Control Agency will be publicly noticing all of the storm water pollution prevention plans within the state of Minnesota, so that’s probably about 170 plans that will go out on public notice for the entire state of Minnesota to review if they so desire. Now, as we’ve typically seen sometimes, this isn’t a very high profile thing, although there are some agencies that have been watching just how this unfolds and how communities are responding to these requirements and how the Pollution City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 27 Control Agency is implementing these requirements on those municipalities. So that’s one thing, by June 1st we will be bringing back another round of this and you will be seeing a revised storm water pollution prevention program, and you’ll need to authorize a second and probably more…substantive requirement will be the nondegradation parameters. We’ve spoken briefly about that at past work sessions and things like that, but basically what that entails is ensure, the Pollution Control Agency is requiring municipalities, there’s 30 to begin with. 30 municipalities that are required to go back and review their storm water quality and quantity models and the goal is to bring those back to pre-clean water at condition which brings us back to 1988. So what we’re going to be needing to do is do an assessment of our current system of where we are and then trying to figure out how we could get back to those 1988 levels. As you can imagine a lot of those municipalities on that list are places like Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Plymouth and ourselves. Chaska’s included in that. There’s a lot of people who have grown a lot in those intervening 20 or so years, so that’s going to be something that we’re going to need to model. If we can’t go back, our model demonstrates that we cannot go back to those ’88 levels, we have to demonstrate how we will achieve what is reasonable and prudent or feasible and prudent rather, to get back towards those levels and do as much as we can to attain those levels. Now, we have been doing some things so we’ve been making steps in the right direction but there may need to be some course correction there. But we just won’t know until we do that further assessment, and that’s something that the 30 of us municipalities, the staff of those municipalities have really been trying to work together and kind of come to a consensus on how we’re going to do that modeling and how we’re going to make those assessments and what kind of things we can do in the future in order to ensure that we’re meeting those requirements of the Pollution Control Agency. So those are the two big changes that we expect in 2006 and beyond, and at this point if you have any questions, Don and I would be more than happy to answer those for you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Lori Haak: Oh I’m sorry Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lori Haak: We also need to have a public hearing on that so. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. No, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Very good. At this point I would like to open the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium. State your name and address and address the council. Councilman Lundquist: Nobody wants to try to say storm water pollution prevention plan. Mayor Furlong: The NPDES. Councilman Lundquist: That’s why we call it SWPPP. Mayor Furlong: That’s right. Anybody that would like to come forward this evening. If not then without objection we’ll close the public hearing and thank staff for their time and effort. This is obviously a big undertaking each year that you’ve been working on it, and we look City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 28 forward to seeing the report come back. We’re pleased to see the highlights and the number of areas where we made progress this year. I’m sure to Councilman Lundquist’s standpoint, we’re not going to see any motors being rebuilt in the CIP, or at least hope that we’re not as a way to reduce our oil discharge. And I’m sure that’s not the case, but to the city staff we thank you for all your efforts on this and we look forward to seeing that report come back in June. Thank you. Any other, to my knowledge there is no action required for the council this evening, other than what we’ve completed. Lori Haak: No, that’s all. Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Lori Haak: Thank you. DAVE & MARYJO BANGASSER, 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A 22.5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, A 15.8 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE (DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT) AND A 2.39% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING ONE-STALL GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A MODIFIED THREE STALL GARAGE ON A NONCONFORMING CORNER LOT OF RECORD. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Again you did look at this at your last meeting on February 27th and you asked the staff to work with the applicant to see what we could do to reduce the hard surface coverage. Just a reminder, the two lots on Minnewashta will, one of the conditions we’re doing is combining those so they have one lot of record, which we believe is prudent. So that’s one mitigation strategy would be to combine the two lots. And then in working with the applicant, the issue was the garage across the street. The original proposal had the garage coming out Red Cedar Point Road, and a three car garage. In working with the applicant, we reduced the hard surface coverage and the garage size itself so it’s a modified three car garage. There will be two door and the actual access will be off of, so we reduce the hard surface coverage on the driveway itself. So if you look in the staff report, we went from the 31.5 down to the 27, so ultimately again looking at the other side where the house sits with the grades and the retaining walls and the driveway that they used to get to the house, it seemed at this point ultimately there’s changes we would look at trying to reduce that. They do do some shared parking with the neighbor next door that we believe this is the best way to get those numbers down and did recommend approval of that. And those conditions of approval are found in, on page 10 of your staff report. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist: Kate, you feel like as you’ve worked through this in the last couple or three weeks that this is a good compromise? It looks like we’ve made some significant improvements here and the applicant’s supportive of it and gets them at least closer to what they’re looking for? City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 29 Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I think the goal was to get a garage that they can put you know more than a single garage, which is there in place, which was their goal, and because of the topography next to the house, so I think in good faith the goal’s always to try, as we stated before with the variances that we try to get those movement towards compliance and we believe this was what they… Councilman Lundquist: And this leaves the driveway and the stairs. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Next to the house so that they can get to the house without having to build some stairs and all that? Kate Aanenson: Right. That became too complex and ultimately they made the other modifications we looked at making some changes at that time. Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So everything around the house stays the same. The only changes are around the garage. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bangasser, Mrs. Bangasser, are you in agreement with the proposal here or is there anything you’d like to address council with? Dave Bangasser: I’ll be real brief. We are, we do find the compromise acceptable. Of the 7 I just might point out one fact. Of the 7 properties in the immediate area, this reduced plan would be the second smallest garage and we have the second largest amount of land there, so we do think that that fact, along with the facts that we presented 2 weeks ago make it very clear that we aren’t deviating from the established standards for the neighborhood. We do think there are a couple of positives as far as from the city standpoint, as Kate mentioned. We’re combining two non-conforming lots into one lot that does conform to the minimum lot size. In addition currently don’t have a garage that meets the minimum standards and we will have one that meets that standard so with that we just ask your approval of this revised plat and we thank you. Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions of Mr. Bangasser? Very good. Thank you for taking the time over the last week, or couple weeks to work with staff on this. We appreciate it. Any other items? Questions on this. I’m sorry. Councilman Lundquist: Did you want to ask for more comment on the. Mayor Furlong: Public comment? Councilman Lundquist: Yes. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 30 Mayor Furlong: Certainly, if there’s a desire for public comment. If anybody in the public would like to provide comment on this. Mrs. Paulsen, did you want to, have a question. Raise a comment. Janet Paulsen: I’m Janet Paulsen again. I certainly support Mr. Bangasser’s request for a larger garage. That’s not my question. My question is combining the lots and their impervious surfaces, and I’m wondering what are the parameters of doing something like that. Mayor Furlong: For combining two lots into one? Janet Paulsen: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Is that a legal question? Kate Aanenson: I believe we addressed that last time too. It’s a zoning lot so even though it is allowed by ordinances to combine the two, and we believe that it’s prudent therefore, obviously Mr. Bangasser bought this lot. Somebody else could buy it and not attach to it. It is a lot of record which would have some rights to it so by combining it, we’ve eliminated the possibility of a separate structure on one. Janet Paulsen: So would this be applicable to any lot in Chanhassen that wanted to enlarge their impervious surface? They could buy a lot. I mean what are the parameters? The geographic parameters. Across the street or kitty corner or down the street? I just don’t know. Kate Aanenson: Well we have those existing conditions. Lake Minnewashta, if you go on Minnewashta Parkway where the lots have been segmented by the road. It happens. Again it would be a lot of record. By doing, by combining it, making a zoning lot it gives you, affords the city actually greater protection so. Janet Paulsen: So this would only apply to a lot of record? Kate Aanenson: Well you can always buy a part of the property next door to you or attach it to your lot administratively. We’ve had that. Somebody wants to buy some of their neighbor’s property and attach it to their lot administratively, that doesn’t require a subdivision. That’s another way to get more impervious surface too. Janet Paulsen: But those are adjacent lots. I’m just wondering what are the parameters. Kate Aanenson: Well it’s defined in the city code and that’d be the definition of a zoning lot. I believe what you asked me last time was combining a lot, and there’s a separate definition for lot and a zoning lot as defined in the city ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Okay. These are separate parcels I think, and I don’t want to get into nomenclature because I’m going to screw that up but this issue, when you raised it I know Mrs. Paulsen at the Planning Commission and I think we talked about it last time too, having a street divide a parcel, which is what this will become is a single parcel, Ms. Aanenson mentioned City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 31 some, to my knowledge, just looking at the County GIS system, that situation occurs directly to the north of this parcel. I think is that Hickory that angles up to the north? There are 3 or 4 properties that have the same type of situation where the single parcel is divided by the public street. Janet Paulsen: So does that mean they’re right across the street from each other or down the street? I just don’t know. Mayor Furlong: In those that I’ve mentioned, I believe they are straight across the street from each other. Kate Aanenson: So the intent would be not to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it. There has to be some nexus there and proximity. We wouldn’t allow someone to buy a lot in the middle of the city and try to combine it under zoning law. Councilman Lundquist: Is that within our jurisdiction to determine? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: If they have to be. Kate Aanenson: Adjacency, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I mean reasonable people would say you have to, you know they’d have to be adjacent for it to make sense. We have jurisdiction to. Kate Aanenson: I believe so. I’ll double check with the City Attorney, yes. Roger Knutson: Yes, what we’re saying is, but for the street they’re abutting and when you use the definition of abutting, it’s very common to say even if you’re divided by a street you’re still abutting. If it’s down the street and around the corner, then certainly it wouldn’t meet our criteria. Councilman Lundquist: Sure. It’s an interesting question, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or is there anybody else who wanted to make public comment? I’ll bring it back to council for our discussion then. Seems that we’ve made some progress over the last 2 weeks since we first heard this. Is there any other discussion? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff with the findings of facts presented. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 32 Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Variance #06-04 for a 22.5 foot front yard setback variance, a 15.8 foot front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard surface coverage variance for the construction of a modified three stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: 1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction if completed. 2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. 3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. 4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks. 8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage. 9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. 10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same Parcel Identification Number. 11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. ROSSAVIK ADDITION, 8800 POWERS BOULEVARD, APPLICANT ARILD ROSSAVIK: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO REIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; REQUEST FOR City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 33 REZONING OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF); AND SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HILLSIDE OAKS INTO 5 LOTS WITH VARIANCES. Public Present: Name Address Ed Kraft 8711 Flamingo Drive Mark Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior Kate Aanenson: Thank you. There are a couple actions in your packet. One, the first being the land use. I’d like to break them out. We have all the motions in there because if you deny the land use, it negates the possibility of the subdivision, so I’ll break it out into two and if there’s motion for approval on the land use amendment, then I’ll be happy to go through the subdivision. Again subject site, Mr. Rossavik did present this item to the Planning Commission on February 21, 2006. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the application. The Planning Commission felt that the redevelopment of the individual lot would change, without changing the adjoining lots, would change the character of the neighborhood and the findings that they felt in the comprehensive plan so again the subject lot is on Powers Boulevard, and I’ll show it to you. This is a large lot. Oakside Circle so this would be the subject lot right here. It’s hard to see that color. There is a neighboring lot to the south and to the north that are also large lots that would be impacted by the potential development of this lot. So if you look at the proposal summary on page 2 of the staff report, looking at the subdivision itself. There are some requirements but what I’d like to do is just focus on the land use amendment itself. We’ve given you the background, how many times this has come. The applicant, it’s his belief that there’s been substantive changes in the area that would make his different, or changing circumstances. The staff does not believe that nor does the Planning Commission. But in reviewing land use and the zoning in the zoning ordinance amendment if there’s an error guiding that needs to be corrected, changing conditions, then we would bring that property forward. In looking at the challenging topography in this area, and hopefully with the color you can see, there’s a lot of contours here as you can see through here. Steep ravines on this property. The backs of these properties which makes it challenging for development, so that’s one of the issues, and the fact that there’s large lots on either side that aren’t ready to develop, that the Planning Commission and the staff agree that the, that would be premature, and those items are also stated on page 4 of the staff report. I’m not going to read through those but those are the ones that would give the substantive findings of why we would not support it at this time. Again, if it was to subdivide, future access has to be provided to the property to the, this property to the south because they do not have access, we would want to limit the access on a collector street, Powers Boulevard. So taking those into consideration, again just strictly talking about the land use, the Planning Commission did recommend that the land use be denied, so I’ll take questions on that at this point and if you do recommend denial, then it would negate the rezoning and the subdivision itself. The findings of fact are also in the staff report. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 34 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Ms. Aanenson, a couple just clarifying questions. This is currently zoned residential large lot. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: That’s what it shows in the comprehensive plan. It’s not similar to what we were talking about earlier this evening, an agricultural piece that is guided to become another. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and I think that’s important to keep in mind and this is a land use amendment, which you have the most discretion on. The other ones were consistent that you saw when we were talking about the 2005. Mayor Furlong: With future guiding. Kate Aanenson: Future guiding, correct. So this asking for a change in guiding, where you have the most discretion. That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And we have other large lot residential land uses in our city… Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and actually the Planning Commission spent a lot of time talking about that. That there are quite a few other large lot subdivisions that really that the Planning Commission doesn’t anticipate the character of those neighborhoods changing any time soon. Even those with significant amount of development around them. As a matter of fact, one being close to the new Powers Boulevard down on Homestead Lane. That neighborhood down there too, so they felt like the characters of those neighborhoods, that’s a lifestyle choice some people have bought into and they want to maintain that character. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point with regard to the land use? Is the applicant here this evening? Or representative. Good evening. Mark Kelly: Good evening Your Honor and council members. Mark Kelly. I’m an attorney. I’m here on behalf of Mr. Rossavik who is out of the country at this time. I’ve certainly heard the report of staff and Mr. Rossavik has requested that the City Council consider the fact that the area along Powers Boulevard has changed substantially based on approvals that this council has made, and past councils made recently. Just to the west you approved a large development. Just to the south of Lyman Boulevard you approved 440 townhomes on a lot that are going in there. You have the Highway 312 that’s going in immediately to the south of Powers Boulevard, and Lyman Boulevard. All of which are changing the character of the area and placing this collector street into a very high volume street. While that area right now has a few homes along it which are very large lot, all the surrounding areas to the north are highly developed. Now, you installed in 1994 under your comprehensive plan at that time you anticipated the need to provide sewer and water to this area. This is an island that has no sewer and water connection in that neighborhood. We don’t understand why the sewer and water that was brought forward at that time in 1994, for which the City paid $260,000…the use of these neighboring properties. In particular the property near Oakside Circle recently was allowed to re-establish it’s septic system without being required to connect to city sewer and water as your ordinance 19-4 requires. My City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 35 client has asked that he be allowed to connect and has been told that right now the City would not allow him to connect because ostensibly his house is less than, is not 150 feet. Within 150 feet of the sewer and water. We understand there’s sewer and water connection stubs at the corner of Mr. Rossavik’s driveway, as well as down at Oakside Circle. Despite that proximity, preference was given to a council member and neighbors in that area so that no sewer and water was required to be connected at that location. These have been conveniences that have denied Mr. Rossavik the opportunity to convert an area that, it’s a very large lot, into some reasonable development of 5 lots. Last time this matter was presented in 2004 I believe, the City gave some consideration and concern regarding the ravine and that in the westerly side lot. All of those were adequately addressed and confirmed by the City staff as being handled by the drainage plan. There is no encroachment on steep slopes or bluff nor is there a loss of vegetation or any other impacts in terms of drainage. This plan, if approved, would provide access to the property to the south so as that becomes available and those property owners decide they want to develop their land, they might. As a practical matter, the development of this land by rezoning this does not deny or impose on any of the neighboring property owners a need to change at this time. The reality is this is a high density area that’s increasingly being commercialized. Within a year you’ll have a major intersection here, just about 2 blocks to the south. Mr. Rossavik’s development will allow access on a cul-de-sac that will service some land to the south. That’s good planning. Doesn’t require multiple curb cuts. In fact there’s already a right hand turn lane that’s been established. The City planned this area to have in and out right hand turn lanes when it redeveloped Powers Boulevard 10 years ago. It is certainly within your discretion to exercise your decisions as you see fit, but we’re asking for consideration of the fact that change has been approved and density has been approved by the City over the course of it’s conduct to the north, to the west, to the south. Nothing can happen to the east because it is wetland, but you did install sewer and water for the purpose of this area developing. And allowing Mr. Rossavik to install a handful of single family homes identical to that which you have off of Flamingo Drive, is not unreasonable. And it doesn’t impose change on anyone. It gives opportunity to others and perhaps those who own on Oakside Circle will gradually change over. But in the meantime my client has been faced with a great deal of frustration as well. His neighbor to the south, or to the north, Mr. Bizek runs a commercial operation out of his garage. The City’s been unwilling to address that matter and has showed preference to Mr. Bizek’s refusal to approve this project. This project came close to being approved a few years ago but was withdrawn, but the City withdrew it’s support when Mr. Bizek decided not to support it. Again Mr. Bizek runs an unlicensed operation from his home which is to this date the City has refused to do anything about. For all the reasons that I’ve described, I think the timeliness of this matter is certainly present and we’d ask that the City reconsider despite the fact that the staff has made it’s presentation asking that it not be approved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? I guess I have some follow up questions based upon some of the statements made to staff. First of all there was a statement that Mr. Rossavik would not be allowed to connect to city utilities. Is that a true statement? Paul Oehme: No it’s not. There, the sewer off it is right there. I mean right against his property. He can definitely hook up at any time that he wishes. In fact if his septic system were to fail, I think that the building officials would require him to hook up at that time. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 36 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there was also made mention of another property owner who I believe the phrase was something to the effect was not required to hook up as ordinance would require. Paul Oehme: Yeah, in that case I did talk to the building official who issued that septic system permit and he did not, that particular property owner did not meet the requirements of city code 19-41. His septic system, his property is more than 150 feet away from that sewer stub off the cul-de-sac so he did not, he would not be required to hook up at that time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so no special preference was made. Paul Oehme: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the commercial operation to the property to the north. Kate Aanenson: Sure, I can address that. The City did research a number of years ago Mr. Bizek. It was determined at that time, working with the City Attorney’s office that it was a legal non-conforming use. We did pursue that and Mr. Rossavik is aware of what our findings were on that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it has. Kate Aanenson: It was a non-conforming. There are some non-conforming. At a time there are some off of Pioneer Trail too. Some contractor’s yards that were permitted under a different zoning ordinance. Pre-dated zoning ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thank you sir. Mark Kelly: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Any other follow up? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was just going to add a couple other questions. Comments just regarding large lots and kind of reiterating what the Planning Commission felt. I did mention Homestead Lane. Timberwood is also another large lot subdivision that’s been impacted by single family lots all the way around. They maintain that character. A very healthy neighborhood. I think we’ve had one or two systems in there that are on the edge that have actually hooked on, but again they did not change the character of the neighborhood. Did not subdivide further. There’s 2 ½ acre minimum and that’s a lifestyle choice that those neighbors selected. Again, if there’s a possibility to hook up and it’s cost effective, they’re within that and the sewer’s available, it’s a separate issue from subdividing, that they’re being provided efficient services that we’d always look at that. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 37 Mayor Furlong: Alright. I guess the overall comment of the amount of development that has occurred, I guess I’ll go back to I think my earlier question is, has that development occurred consistent with our comprehensive plan? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is there anybody that would like to provide public comment on this matter? I know it was heard at the Planning Commission. Okay, very good. Council discussion. Thoughts, comments. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, have commented on this in years past that the hang-up that I have always had, and continue to have on this is that it’s an island. If it’s, you know it’s not the most northerly lot. It’s not the most southerly lot. It’s pretty much right in the middle, so some issues and challenges with that. Have voted for in the past, and would consider developments that make sense for the area as a whole, but to drop a, to drop this in the middle of that is where I continue to have a problem. Yes there’s been developments to the west and south. Lots of changes in the area, but as we’ve looked at those, if they make sense as infill developments and other things going on is the issue that I continue to have with this one. Is that, I don’t see a compelling reason to make a land use amendment for a 5, or how ever many home development in the middle of that area. Once these properties can get together and come together and present a unified plan to develop, or as that development proceeds from the north to the south, or the south to the north I might feel more compelled to look at that right now. I don’t see a compelling reason to make a land use amendment for that. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I guess I wish Mr. Rossavik would have been here tonight because I would have asked him why he bought his property. I’m assuming it’s because he chose that life style of living on a large lot residential area and I’m sure if we asked any of the neighbors that lived there why’d you buy your property, it was because it was a large lot residential area. I think it’s a unique part of the city and I don’t think we’ll see a lot more of those being developed in our city and I think they need to be respected and protected and so I too am not in favor of changing anything that’s existing there already. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, yeah. Obviously I’ve been on record before about this project and more importantly about other projects where subdivisions are in the offing, and historically I try to find ways not to do subdivisions when the city can maintain a look and feel that a lot of our residents wanted when they moved to Chanhassen. And I’ve been pretty vocal about the need to maintain a wide variety of housing styles and maintain as much green acres as we possibly can. I mean our city survey, it’s a resounding yes when you asked the citizens if you want more green space, less green space…maintain green space, but to Councilman Lundquist’s point, the island is clearly in this situation probably the most compelling reason not to make an adjustment. And we’ve got an area to the east that is open and wooded and wetlands. You’ve City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 38 got a park to the west and you’ve got large lots surrounding it, so it just simply doesn’t fit. For those reasons I would affirm the staff position and deny the request. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts are similar to those expressed. I think that in this particular case it is a single lot within a currently zoned next to the neighboring lots, as part of my questions. Though development has occurred, it’s been consistent with the comprehensive plan generally and so I don’t think even with the Highway 212 being constructed, that was part of the comprehensive plan so the changes are consistent with what could be expected by all property owners. And I agree with Councilman Lundquist’s positions both in terms of the island and in terms of when as a council we should consider changing these, and it takes more than one property owner. Does it take all of them? The factor probably depends, but it certainly takes more than one. We had a situation like this up along Lake Lucy Road last year when we were looking at a street project and extending utilities in that case. I think there were a number of property owners that would be willing to take the assessments for the utilities if they were allowed to subdivide, but it was clearly not a consensus among property owners that subdivision was what that neighborhood wanted and so in the end we did not move forward with the utility assessments, because it was pretty clear that many of those property owners would not accept the assessments without that subdivision option and that just wasn’t there yet from the property owners so, I think we have a very similar situation here. And I see, I don’t see any justification for not following staff’s recommendation and the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this matter. Is there other comments or thoughts on this? If not we have, beginning on page… Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would move the City Council deny the land use map amendment from residential large lot to residential low density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on the findings of fact. Roger Knutson: And includes adopting the findings? Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Based on adopting the findings of fact. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Do you want to pick up B and C there? Do we need to do that as well, since that’s part of the application? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: We’re required to. Kate Aanenson: You can make it all one motion. Roger Knutson: Yeah, you’d turn down all three. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to keep going? Councilman Lundquist: Why not. Mr. Mayor, I’d also move that the City Council deny the rezoning from A2 to RSF for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council deny the preliminary City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 39 plat of the Rossavik Addition creating 5 lots and variance for the use of a private street based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that combined motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: It’s made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks, adopting the findings of fact. That the City Council denies the rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Lot 2, Block 1, Hillside Oaks based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan designation of the property. And that the City Council denies the preliminary plat of Rossavik Addition creating five lots with a variance for the use of a private street, based on non-conformance with the zoning of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Move on to the next item here which is consideration of Halla Greens. We have a number of people here so I’d like to try to keep our meeting moving at this point. Kate Aanenson: Take a quick break. Mayor Furlong: Is there a desire for. Councilman Lundquist: 5 minutes recess. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We’ll take a recess subject to the call of the Chair. Let’s keep it short though. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) HALLA GREENS (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD Public Present: Name Address David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Boulevard David & Judy Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard Sandy & Don Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail Dave Wondra 9590 Foxford Road City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 40 Tom Anderson 9371 Foxford Road Magdy & June Ebrahim 521 Pineview Court Steve Shipley 261 Eastwood Court Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant before you tonight is requesting an amendment to the conditional use and site plan approval that was granted for a golf course located on Pioneer Trail and 101, on the southeast corner. The plan itself has changed since the original application. The cover part of your staff report was, what was originally approved and what the applicant, Mr. Halla is proposing. Instead of going through that, what I would like to do is if you turn the page is go through what Mr. Halla’s requesting and what the staff is recommending. And with that, this did go to the Planning Commission. There was some ambiguity at the Planning Commission regarding the motion and I know that caused a little bit concern with the, with some of the neighbors but the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing February 7th to review the project and the Planning Commission 4 to 2 voted to deny the requested amendments. So with that the staff took the lead to get the application where we felt it met the issues regarding, where we could attach reasonable conditions for a conditional use and the site plan. Have them make those modifications and that’s what I’d like to spend some time going through. So on the north is the Pioneer Trail, and this would be the driveway coming in. The original club house itself was 44 by 66 and that’s, or what Mr. Halla’s requesting and that still is what we’re recommending for approval. There was outdoor seating. It’s been changed to kind of a veranda on each side, and the staff is supportive of that. There was a maintenance building and Mr. Halla’s requesting a 68 by 120 with a 24 foot future. The staff has recommended denial of that. That size, but back to the 1,800 square foot that was previously approved. We think that’s in excess of the size of this operation. Again the ball washing machine, we believe that can be incorporated into the maintenance building so we are recommending denial of that. There was a shelter building that they used for teaching and the staff is recommending approval of that shelter building and that was 16 by 40 feet. Lighting. The applicant wanted to use two different size of heights, 25 and 15. Staff is recommending 15 feet around the entire site. The lights themselves, I’m just showing this just, I know you can’t read it but just for your edification. This is photometrics. This was submitted. We do require a half foot at the candle…anybody read it but I just want you to know we have reviewed that. But the lights themselves, there’s lighting here. And there’s lighting on the driveway coming here and then back towards the maintenance building and those we’re recommending 15 feet. Again just for clarification city code does require parking lot lighting. I know we were asked by the residents that Bluff Creek Golf Course does not have them. That golf course predates most of us here that were involved in the city. The most recent golf course that the staff worked on, actually I worked on is the Rain, Snow, Shine Golf Course and that one does have parking lot lighting and that is consistent with city ordinance, but actually this one we actually went down a little bit lower and I believe they even have that’s 15 feet which city ordinance allows 30 feet. So we did recommend 15 feet overall. The applicant had requested some at 25 and some at 15. There was a request for a temporary structure, …building to serve customers and employees building until that’s complete. That’s fine. Staff did recommend approval of that. And then the other one we had a concern with was the ribbed metal on the exterior building for the maintenance building and the ball washing. We recommended denial on that. Again we don’t know how long the life of this building would be so we are making consistent with the city ordinance which requires non-metal and it would be used as an accent. And then the request of hours of operation. We’re again going back to the City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 41 original conditional use. Again fitting in with the neighborhood, and that request for the extended hours was denied. At 11:00 it’s dark so you couldn’t be golfing then. So with that, again this is just a change. I’m not going to go through unless you have specific questions on the use of the building itself. If you turn to page, findings of the changes are all found throughout the staff report but the conditions itself then are, what we’ve done is taken the original site plan condition. Whatever shows up in the original conditions of approval for the site plan or the conditional use. Those conditions starting on page, the recommendations starting on page 18 would be in addition to those original conditions or shown as modified, if that makes sense. So that’s what we are recommending for approval on the conditional use and the site plan itself. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the, now I lost my page. Go to the lights first. If this was not a, anything more than a sunrise to sunset operation, would our ordinance still require, and I understand the safety element of the ordinance and that but if it’s a sunrise to sunset operation, would we need lights there? Kate Aanenson: Yeah and that’s very similar to what we have at RSS. Sometimes people, there is a building, sometimes people go in and visit for a little bit afterwards. We have restrictions on what they can serve down there too but it’s very similar and there’s also parking lot lighting down there. Councilman Lundquist: Well Rain, Snow or Shine, I mean they’re open when it’s dark. You go in the winter time, they’re open til 9:00 and it’s dark at 5:30. So I mean that’s not a. Kate Aanenson: Again I’ll go back to what the city ordinance says. You know what we look at too is the safety issue too. Backing in… Todd Gerhardt: Yeah Mayor, council members. The lighting in the parking lot also acts as a security. If you don’t have lights in the parking lot you could have individuals go in there at night, park and run around the golf course. By having lighting it provides security for our policemen as they drive by to see what’s going on in the area. Golf courses are notorious for teenagers to hang out and do property damage so it also provides a security. Councilman Lundquist: On the other conditions as I read through here, we’re requiring some berming and other stuff around the parking lot so that parking lot’s not visible from the street and neighbors. Kate Aanenson: Well what’s intended, you would still be able to see a car but really it’s intended also to screen some of the car lights so you’re not, those aren’t shining on adjacent properties. Councilman Lundquist: So would that parking lot be readily visible from 101 and Pioneer? City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 42 Kate Aanenson: I think you’d be able to see if there’s a car in there but not necessarily the lights so you still could see the top of a car. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I believe you can pretty much right now so. Councilman Lundquist: Right. The extra, the 16 by 40 building, on that plan that you have in front of you. Show where that is proposed to go? Kate Aanenson: This is the larger storage building. Councilman Lundquist: No, not the 60, not the monster one. The 16 by 40 teaching shelter building. It may be in relation to where the club house is proposed to go. Kate Aanenson: It’s a wing wall building and I don’t see it on the plan. Erik Olson: Right, the drive…is right here. The little teaching shack would be on the west side of the driving range, approximately right around this area. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s open on the outside. Yeah, 3 sides. Councilman Lundquist: Like a RSS? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Okay. Other, and refresh my memory on the ordinance, what the lights. Do we have a minimum requirement for foot candles or height of lights or anything like that in the ordinance or does it just say, got to have some lights in the parking lot? Kate Aanenson: Well there is a photometrics here so we try to look that it’s evenly distributed and then it drops at the half foot candle at the property line, which this does significantly before you get to that. The 30 foot, based on the character of the neighborhood, since he was already proposing 15 on a majority of them, we felt 15 would be consistent throughout there but we wouldn’t have as much spill. We certainly understand that that’s changing the neighborhood by having additional lighting there, and whether it’s along the street lighting and that, those neighborhoods there. Councilman Lundquist: So does the ordinance require a minimum height of a light or is it just say we’ve got to have some lights. Kate Aanenson: Well the ordinance says 30 feet. Because he had. Councilman Lundquist: Minimum of 30 or maximum? Kate Aanenson: Maximum. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 43 Councilman Lundquist: And is there a minimum standard? Kate Aanenson: You know to get a parking lot light less than that might be, I’m not sure would be desirable or effective. Roger Knutson: Could just comment. It has to be a parking lot light to light the parking lot so presumably there’s some minimum height. I don’t know what it would be to light the parking lot. Kate Aanenson: Well and the other part of that is, we may have more poles to get the same amount of lighting so you might have the same illumination, or more illumination so it’s a mathematical thing too. Councilman Lundquist: So there’s a standard in there that talks about foot candles? I’m searching for something other than. Kate Aanenson: We tried that too. Tried to find some other way to mitigate that but you would actually, you may have more poles and more lights to try to get to that, if you want to 10 feet or something. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So the standard in the ordinance is about, there’s a maximum and then there’s a standard for foot candles of illumination that are required? Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s the two variables. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And I guess to clarify, is that illumination requirement that maximum illumination in the parking lot or at the property line? Kate Aanenson: At the property line but there are industry standards and we go back to the literature to review that. We don’t have that built in our code but we would work with Beth Hoiseth, our safety person to look at that, and that, going back to what city manager said, that’s kind of the safety issue part of it. How we balance that. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate. Mayor Furlong: Other questions, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, when I was a new Planning Commissioner I think when this came on the first time so I have a history with this sort of. I don’t remember discussions regarding lights at that point. I know there was discussion regarding wells and the watering of the course. Why wasn’t that ever brought up or you know talked about back then? City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 44 Kate Aanenson: Well I think that the applicant, as you can see by the request, as a different need and different desires than the original, the original applicant so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I don’t want to put you in a spot but what different needs? I mean what’s changed with this whole thing? Kate Aanenson: Well I think clearly one would be the building itself. If you look at what the original building looked like. Zoom in on that. A little bit more rustic. I think the current applicant has a little bit more highly stylized building so I think that would be some of it too. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In regards to lighting the parking lot? Kate Aanenson: No, in regards to the use itself. That’s where I was going back to. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh, okay. Kate Aanenson: So this conditional use, and the site plan amendment, there’s several things that are being requested. The applicant didn’t want to stay with those same standards. So one would be the highly articulated building and assuming the additional parking to provide more people to come there. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And what are the club house hours? Kate Aanenson: Well the original request was for sunrise to sunset and then this applicant wanted to go to 11:00 p.m.. Councilwoman Tjornhom: For the club house and the golf course or just? Kate Aanenson: Well there’s no lights on the golf course. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So you can’t golf at 11:00. Kate Aanenson: You could try but. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well it wouldn’t work, and I don’t golf but I’m assuming… Kate Aanenson: Well, and that goes back to the building itself so, right. So if you can’t golf, which is they’d be doing something at the building. Councilwoman Tjornhom: At the club house, that’s what I’m trying to get at. Is that what brings the safety concerns and the needs for lights? Kate Aanenson: Well if you look at the conditions of approval, that’s where we recommended denial of extension of hours because then you’ve got a segment of time between the, when you can’t golf and. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 45 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, you have to go home when you’re done golfing. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, you can lounge a little bit but pretty much that’s the intent and that’s the same condition that…a curfew that while they’re golfing in the winter then it’s not intended to be a club house or you know some other type of establishment. That it’s really ancillary to the primary use which is the golf. So it’s an opportunity to visit. Meet the pro, whatever but it’s really intended to be part of the same, not a separate commercial type use. But it’s related to golf. And that was the recommendation for not, for denying and not extending the hours. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Councilman Peterson, any questions at this point? Councilman Peterson: You know one of the things Kate was that we were originally intending to put lights on the building. Was the building in a different spot originally so that we were going to off light the parking lot with off the building? I mean I assume it would be because right now it wouldn’t really be possible would it? Kate Aanenson: It would be difficult. I mean you could put them in the soffit over the door the way the. Councilman Peterson: But if we did that, the lighting would be more intrusive to the neighbors than it would with down lighting now right? Kate Aanenson: Right. I mean if you put it, if you put in under the soffit here, it would provide lighting just for that door otherwise yeah, you’re right. It would be the height of the building at 27 feet, if you put somewhere, could be higher. Councilman Peterson: And you’re going to put spots and it’s just going to be a glaring thing in the night. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and those tend to be, that is a nuisance, the calls that we get sometimes when a business goes next door that we have to work to get it shielded and pointed down. And then you might not get the park, or the area for protection that we’re talking about before in the parking lot. Councilman Peterson: What kind of discussion did you have with the applicant regarding the maintenance building more than doubling in size? I’m confused by that. I don’t know whether you’ve had any discussions or we can ask the applicant the same thing. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well I think you know we always try to find that proportionality to say, if this is intended to be related to the golf course, it seems excessive for that size of a course and we kind of looked around to see what other size of maintenance buildings and it just seemed in excess of what you would need for this golf course. So we recommended that it be significantly smaller. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 46 Councilman Peterson: Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, one more on the parking spaces. I mean as I drive by I guess I see that the parking lot’s already there so, but it’s not often that we have applicants come in with four, with even barely meeting the number of parking spaces and certainly not with 4 times. Any concerns from staff on all that extra hard cover when you know ordinances require or that’s an applicant driven figure and that’s how many people they can get out on the course at a time or? Kate Aanenson: Some of both, yeah. I don’t think that, based on what they would consider the practice, that’s what they felt they needed. We did put a condition in here regarding that there’s no commercial kitchen so it’s not being used for that type of facility. For that, but if there was some, if you had something after league or something like that where they did, they catered something in, I think that’s kind of what they were looking at possibly too. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, as I went this weekend down to Rain, Snow or Shine I think I counted 64 parking spots and I guess I’d look at it as a similar deal. I mean they’ve got a little short course there. They’ve got their little putt putt thing and the other stuff going on, and just one of those things, I wonder if the parking lot needs to be that, I mean it’s there. It’s already, it’s approved. You know it’s fine. I just wanted to know if you’ve got any, if staff had any concerns about all that extra hard cover when. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. We constantly look at ways to try to reduce the impervious surface and you know they have a 45 acre site so my guess they’re substantially below the minimum. We work with them in trying to determine what they need to operate the business and I guess that’s what we agreed to. Mayor Furlong: I may have some follow up questions for staff after we hear from the applicant. Are there any other questions for staff at this point? If not, is the applicant here this evening? I know you are because you came up once already. Erik Olson: Good evening Mayor, council members. Fellow neighbors and citizens. My name is Erik Olson. I’m a resident of Chanhassen. I reside at 9855 Delphinium Lane. I’m also the manager of Halla Greens Golf Course. I’m here tonight to give you a brief history of our involvement with the course and then go over the issues about the buildings, the hours of operations, the lights. Hopefully we can get that straighten away tonight too. Just a brief history. About 6 years ago Don Halla leased his property out for the construction of a golf course. Back in November of 2004 the lease was essentially given back to Don. He had to decide between completing the construction of the course or letting it revert back to a tree farm, which is what it was originally. The decision was made by Don and his wife to basically go ahead with construction of the course and you know build something that the whole community can enjoy. By the time we got involved the previous lessee had already received all the people permits from the city and during the process of building and growing in the courses last year we came to realize that some changes were needed in order to basically improve the operation of this golf course and that’s basically why we’re here tonight. We’ve worked hard with the staff to try to fix all the different issues that we’ve been having. We’re pleased that they like the new club house. The old one was basically you saw a picture of it, a 40 by 60 pole barn with cedar siding. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 47 Looks like something you’d tie a horse up to and go into a saloon basically. The new one is, it’s just lightly larger. 40 by 66 and like staff said before, we’d have two enclosed porches on the east and west sides and it would be built using vinyl shake siding with simulated cedar textured siding. An example of the color and style that we would use and like I said before, staff has given approval for this. Do want to bring out just one other picture, and you can see this a little bit better than the one that was already here but this is basically the design of the new club house. It’s similar in style, looks to the Chaska Town Course club house, if any of you are familiar with that one. The maintenance building as approved is a 30 by 60 pole barn. Storage of equipment is really the main problem here. We would only be able to store about 25, maybe 30% of the equipment that we have inside and then the balance of it would have to be kept outside the maintenance building in an enclosed, fenced in area that’s required basically by city code. This, even though it’s outside and enclosed in a fence, you know you’ll probably still get to see some of the equipment sitting back there. Not very attractive and it’s also you know very damaging to the equipment itself, forcing it to sit outside in the elements all the time. What we proposed is a 68 by 120 foot metal pole barn building. The construction material that’s similar to the one, Hazeltine Golf Club just built down the road as far as the metal that they used. This is an example here from the colors and the metal itself. Now in regards to the variance that we’re requesting the use of metal on the maintenance building, I understand why the City wants the material to be wood. Wood looks very nice. But with the materials that we would use, and really the way the buildings are designed, we don’t feel it would be a blight on the community in the slightest. In addition, we already have metal buildings around the entire property already. We don’t feel that we’re adding anything different or out of place to the surrounding community. There is both commercial and residential metal buildings around the site. The commercial ones are in the northwest corner of the property and west side of the property. Commercial, residential basically on all four sides already. You know in regards to the size a little bit too, I’d like to talk about most golf courses, if you go into their maintenance area, they have a lot of equipment sitting out. You know there’s piles of dirt. There’s piles of sand. There’s you know equipment that doesn’t work anymore sitting out in the yard basically, and with this increase in size basically we’re allowing it all to be brought inside…I know there’s some concern brought up in some of the staff reports that the nursery, Don Halla’s other business would be using part of this building to help out their endeavors over there and I would just like to stress that that wouldn’t be the case at all. This is strictly golf course operation and equipment being used in the building. We also respectfully ask for two other buildings that weren’t thought of before. One is a ball, staff refers to this as a ball washing building and that really isn’t the correct definition. We can wash the balls in the maintenance building. That’s not the problem at all. What we need is a building to house the ball dispenser for the range balls. Holds the baskets there. The balls themselves. Extra balls that we have. The washing can take place over in the maintenance side. That isn’t a problem, but basically we need that building in order to operate and run the driving range. Without the club house built yet, you know that’s really what we’re planning on, or we’re planning on building first in order to get this golf course open this spring. A driving range is always the first thing to open up on a golf course, but we need something to house the ball dispenser. Keep it safe at night. Keep it locked up. The other building is a lean-to teaching shack on the range to provide privacy and really safety for the golf pro and students. I pointed out earlier where it would go on the driving range. Both these buildings can be built using the vinyl siding that I showed here earlier. Something similar in design so everything looks nice and attractive. But you know if it helps matters we would be willing to eliminate the teaching shack City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 48 structure in order to get approval for the ball dispensing building. The variance on the hours of operation is also very important to the success of this golf course. Right now we have approval of limiting our time of operations from sunrise to sunset. As you know there’s a lot of light before the official sunrise and plenty of light after the official sunset. We would like to be able to conduct our business the exact same way every golf course near us does, as well as basically every golf course in America does. And let me explain a little bit what I mean by that. The first tee time is usually at sunrise. The official sunrise time. Typically a half hour before that, the ground crew’s out mowing, moving the holes on the greens. Putting the flags out. Things like that, and the last golfer that comes in, when they can no longer see the flight of their ball. I don’t know if any of you are golfers here but if you’re one of the last ones out on the tee time and you know it’s getting toward dark and you don’t want to feel like you’ve spent money for nothing. I mean you’re staying out there and hitting that ball as long as possible until you basically can’t see anymore. Behind that last golfer on the course, the ground crew’s again is out trailing behind them. Removing the flag sticks from all the greens for the night. Picking up any garbage they see laying around the course so it’s not flying around over night. Basically by doing things this way, three things are really accomplished. One, the grounds crew is kept safe from being injured by a ball. Two, the golfers aren’t inconvenienced by and they’re really kept safe from maintenance being done on the course while they’re out there playing their round. And three, it allows us to maximize the usable playing time over the course of a day. We’d respectfully request that the sunrise to sunset definition be changed to say, light to dark or have a time stipulation attached. This 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. that was listed was really given to the city staff as an example of something that we wanted to see as opposed to just sunrise to sunset. I mean that was never designed to be the exact times that we wanted to remain open. It was just meant as an example. So you know, the light to dark or even if we could have something like a half hour before sunrise. Half hour, hour after sunset. Something like that. This would basically allow us to compete fairly with our competition and keep our employees and customers safe. Lastly we request to be able to put in the parking lot lights for the safety of the employees, the customers, property itself. The 15 foot high poles that the staff recommends is perfectly acceptable to us. We don’t have a problem with that. I know that some of the neighbors do have a lot of concerns about these lights and I’ve talked to David before and I’m sure that’s why he’s here tonight too is to see what the decision is on that and basically as an act of good faith and to show that we do want to be good neighbors, we’d be willing to withdraw the request for parking lot lights, although I don’t know if city code allows us to do that or not. I mean that’s something that you’ll have to decide. This could be you know a wonderful community asset but you know we need your help basically on some of the variances with buildings and the longer hours of operations and possibly with the lights. How you decide to do that. I just want to thank you for your time and if you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for Mr. Olson. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Olson, if you can, can you explain the original lessee, Mr. Saatzer, is he involved with the golf course anymore at all? Erik Olson: You know I’m not really privy to that information but I believe he’s a small, has a small percentage of the investment on the course. From my understanding. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 49 Councilman Lundquist: So I’m curious that with the original proposal with Mr. Saatzer as the primary lessee and all of that, that Mr. Halla was fine with everything that was going on as long as Mr. Saatzer was paying the rent. Now that’s not the case anymore. You don’t feel like it’s a viable, a viable business anymore? Erik Olson: Well from my original understanding, Don Halla’s only involvement in the original proposal is he was strictly leasing the land to Ron Saatzer. And that’s as far as that went. When he essentially gave back the lease to Don, how can I put this? The original plans, everything was done to a minimum. Kind of just to get by. Don just wanted to build something nicer. Bottom line. That’s why you see the difference in the club house. The difference in the maintenance building. Instead of having a smaller building and having things left out you know, we get a bigger building and put everything inside so nothing is viewed. The hours of operation I don’t think were really thought of before in that initial approval from Ron’s side. When we were building it and looking at it, knowing how golf courses operate and I have a list if you want of the work start times for basically all the surrounding golf courses. When they start their play. When they end their play. When they’re watering schedule is. It’s all basically the same. Kind of coming in late to the approval process we just wanted to try to make some changes to better the course. Councilman Lundquist: So what’s your thoughts on tee times? How often, what’s the gap going to be between your tee times? Erik Olson: 8 minutes. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And you think of a, I mean that’s a pretty, you feel like that’s a pretty aggressive tee time for a short course? Do you expect that you’re going to have mostly beginners? You know all levels of play or what do you think is your primary target? Erik Olson: Well it’s not like the 9 holes down at the bottom of the hill, the Rain, Snow, Shine Golf Zone I think is the other name he goes by. That course is, I think maybe the longest hole he has is 60 yards. So that’s really designed for the absolute beginner. You know someone just starting out. This course is going to be more difficult. It’s not really designed for that type of beginner. We’ll have teaching pros available for beginners to learn and you know the driving range for them to practice on, but it would really be better for them to go down at the bottom of the hill if they want to play a round. This is designed more for you know the hacker can still go out and have fun on it. But if you’re you know a first day of golf is your day that you’re playing Halla Greens, you might not have that much fun. You might not have much fun on any course for that matter but, you know our course is going to be a challenge. Councilman Lundquist: What’s the longest hole? It’s 1,500 yards for 9 holes. Erik Olson: We have two par 4’s. Both dog leg left’s. The longest being 333 and then the other one I think is 318. 317. Something like that. Councilman Lundquist: So par 29? City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 50 Erik Olson: Yes, it’s par 29. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. The ball shed, whatever. The 32 by 20. Is that what that is? I mean as I walk around other golf courses, when I think of a driving range, I mean there’s a thing like the size of a pop machine that you put the bucket under and then like two pop machine depths behind it where they store you know 500 or 600 baskets of balls. And so when I think of you know a place for all of that, I think you can, if you put 3 port-a-potties together it probably fits in that size so can you, you know help me understand why you think you need the size of that building to put a ball dispenser and some baskets in. Erik Olson: Sure. Basically going around to all the golf courses, I talked to the golf courses that had ranges and the person that was involved with the range and took a look at what they had as far as the building that stored their range balls. Their ball dispenser and for the most part you’re right. They’re maybe 15 by 15 side of a building at the, you know on the larger end. 15 by 20 maybe on a couple of them. Like maybe down by Deer Run I think has a pretty good size one. But talking with these people, the one thing they always wanted was for the building to be bigger for more storage. You’re always buying more range balls. Range balls get lost. Stolen. Damaged so you’re constantly having to have a new supply of range balls brought into the course. The best way is to have a whole bunch of balls already on the facility available to you instead of waiting for shipment. So with the size that we came up with, basically that was the size that all these other driving range managers ideally would have liked to have on their bench. You know for their use. So that’s the size that we came up with. If it would help matters, I mean we’d be willing to sit down with staff and maybe come up with a different size or more appropriate size, if that makes you feel more comfortable. Councilman Lundquist: That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Councilman Peterson: Speaking on the same realm of building size, as I offered earlier. You spoke of storing stuff inside a maintenance building that you would normally have outside. Was that the assumption to the best of your knowledge when the original building was proposed at 30 by 60, that everything else be stored outside? Number two, you know I look at the schematic of the layout of the building, it looks like you’re storing some golf carts inside and is that primarily why you want the extra space? What are you planning on putting in versus out? Erik Olson: Right now we do not have golf carts for the course. This larger building would basically house everything. From the fertilizers. Have a chemical room inside. Like I said before you know with the 30 by 60, I’m sure Ron was going to get what he could inside that size and you know, you’re basically forced to leave the rest out. You know you’re leaving your, we’re going to have, a golf course has to have piles of soil for maintenance out on the course and replacing divots. We’ve got to have sand for top dressing the greens. Those piles are typically outside and they’re typically covered with some sort of tarp. You want to keep them as dry as possible. It’s just much easier to work with the material when it’s dry as opposed to wet. Some of the stuff you can’t work with it when it’s wet so, we were envisioning all of this moving inside the building and basically removing anything out of sight from the public. Including in City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 51 the future, if we choose to have golf carts available for our golfers, we’d have room inside the maintenance building then for storage of the carts overnight. Councilman Peterson: Okay, and what’s the intent of the additional 24 feet? Is that anything specific in mind for that? Erik Olson: You know that would be probably for additional carts. I don’t know off hand. Sandy Halla: When they’re handicap they have to…so a normal person would probably want to do that. The people who wanted help would be able to do… Erik Olson: So additional golf carts basically is what that would be for. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Question on the teaching shelter. I guess we’re going building to building here. You had mentioned and again could you point out where, that’s not on the, is that on the site plan that we were given or not? And if it’s not, if you could point where that is. Erik Olson: If you could zoom in…this area. This is the building right here. This is the west hand side. It’s probably, this is the driving range tee box and from that tee box, I’m guessing here but it’s maybe 20 yards away from that tee box. You’d have this side, this side and this side and then open in the front, with a roof on the top. Basically a lean-to and they’re shooting out. Being used only for iron practice. Not for woods practice. They have to go back to the tee box. We don’t have the room for them on that, but it’s basically in that area and just provides a safe haven. Get them off and away from the other clientele using the driving range. Mayor Furlong: So the, to move them away or get them away from the other clientele using the driving range, that’s just a preference spot on the course? Erik Olson: You know some of the golf pros like to do that. If they’re on the tee box, say we section off an area. Mayor Furlong: The driving range? Erik Olson: Yeah. The driving range tee box and they’re teaching. We have an area sectioned off for them and they maybe have 5-6 students there. If I’m trying to pick up some free lessons. Don’t want to pay them to spend an hour with me, you know I might try to get as close to them as possible to pick up what information I can. Eavesdrop basically and so some of the pros like to basically have a separate teaching shack where they can teach in privacy. And because of the area that it’s at, it’d have to be enclosed on the three sides just to provide safety. There is netting going to be installed along the side, but even with that netting we would still want it to be sided just for further protection. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 52 Mayor Furlong: Some of my other questions have been asked. You commented on them so, okay. Other questions at this point for the applicant? Okay. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. Erik Olson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: There was a public hearing held at the Planning Commission and I don’t want to repeat that this evening. At the same time if there are some residents or other interested parties that would like to provide some comment to the council based upon changes that occurred between the Planning Commission and now, I would certainly entertain…comment there as well. So if anybody would like to provide some comment, they can come forth at this point. State your name and address for. Dave Walstad: Good evening. My name is Dave Walstad. I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard, which is directly south at the end of the driving range. I just have a couple quick comments regarding hours of operation which to me is the main issue for me. It seems like the applicant wants to have it both ways. First of all stating that it’s light for so long before and after sunset, that they should be allowed to operate and then saying they need lights to provide safety. To me the reason for the lights are more safety for the building versus safety of personnel and I’m not sure if that issue is really the same. Are they allowed to light, for instance we allow parking lot lights, building lights, 15 feet tall, whatever height, does that mean they’re allowed to operate 24 hours a day? Are they there for only on for timers? To shut off now after sunset. That would be something that I think should be considered. If it’s truly for people that are on the course, I think that can be restricted. And secondly, the other issue seems to be again, you mentioned in the previous hearing it was talked about residents and the areas that they were in being large lot and yes, you’re very correct and that’s why we bought our property was to maintain that type of atmosphere. Yes, we realize a golf course is a conditional use and that’s permitted. However, we do wish to make sure that it’s understood that this is not a commercially zoned area where some of the other golf courses might be operating in that type of zone. And so again the concern over the hours of operation was brought up significantly at the Planning Commission hearing and I don’t want to belabor that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Dave Walstad: But that’s, I think that’s all I need to say at this point. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Anybody else? Like to make comments. David Gatto: Good evening Mayor, council. My name’s David Gatto. 9631 Foxford Road. I’m speaking on behalf of the 37 families that live on Foxford Road, on Pinecrest Road and what’s the other one? Audience: Eastwood. David Gatto: Eastwood Court. And I’m going to not try to repeat what I said in the commission meeting, but what we’re going to discuss tonight, it looks like what you’re discussing tonight is City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 53 really a substantial change and an expansion for a business and a business plan that wasn’t, that hasn’t really operated for one hour yet for the original proposed business. What we’ve approved so far, what the city’s approved so far is really what I’ve heard folks say is a ma and pa, pop executive golf course and driving range, a small club house with outdoor seating. A reasonable maintenance building. We’ve got a big inconsistency with the staff and the conditional use permit did specifically talk about safety and lights. You talk about safety in the background narrative of the staff report. You talked about lighting in the executive summary under what was, and then under lighting it says lights attached at the building. So what I put in the e-mail to all you folks, the residents at Lake Riley Woods will hold the City responsible for those notifications and notices to us that you did address safety and you did address light and that’s what it said it would be, and that’s what everybody said would be great. Let’s have this little golf course because that’s all light and it’s going to be present. With their change tonight, what I appreciate these folks saying is that they are, they’re a bit flexible with regards to the parking lot lighting. If they’re flexible with regards to the parking lot lighting, I think they’re going to find that the residents just north of this golf course are going to be very flexible with regards to the things that we will support them in. These other things that they’d like to do now. We also have reasonable expectations the business would operate from sun up to sun down. So you permitted the above described business in a very special part of your city, and we’ve heard a lot of that tonight. And we think this very special part and corner of our city ought to stay that way. It has rarity and character. It has nice homes. It has big lots, and it has strict association standards that we have enforced even if it’s been painful to some of us sometimes. We have dark. We have quiet nights out there, and no one thought much about this small corner of Chanhassen yet. I mean even to the point to where we don’t have any sewer and water. The sewer and water is long went past us to the west and to the north, and to the south, and we are all eagerly awaiting in a couple years when the freeway opens and the commuter traffic, the east/west commuter traffic is pulled off of Pioneer Trail and that corner of Chanhassen’s going to be pretty unique. Now what we’re asked to consider is a business described plus a larger and more deluxe club house with more seating outside. A maintenance building that’s more than 2 times with future expansion capabilities. A ball washing facility that’s bigger than a large 3 car garage. I agree with you Brian. I’ve been around golf courses since I’ve been about this high and I’m not understanding that one myself, but I could be wrong. A teaching shelter 40 feet long. The staff approved it. They didn’t even know where it was on the plan. A temporary shelter because the applicant didn’t build his original permitted club house. He’s worked on the course for nearly 2 years. We’re now going to have potentially expanded hours. We have lots of extra lights. And we hear that they might want to sell beer in the future, so the original plan was a quiet day time business. It generally didn’t impact our neighborhood. The new plan will physically affect the unique beauty and landscape of our neighborhood. The expanded hour and lights and capacity of people will impact the quiet and private nature of our neighborhood after dark. I’m sure I’ll be able to hear people talking and yakking in those porches that are going to be each side of that club house. If they’re drinking beer and carrying on after dark until 11:00, I know we’re going to hear them yakking and carrying on. I know that’s going to impact my…and it’s going to give me great concern for my safety…golf courses and parking lots attract potentially undesirable people. As it stands out there now and everybody knows, we’ve got our wives and our children that go out walking before the sun rises. After the sun sets. This couple here, I’ve seen them almost every night before this morning. They’ve been out after dark walking. So we really think that limits our enjoyment. Our comfort and these changes are going to negatively affect our City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 54 property values out there. So as it stands now, and I again, the flexibility in the parking lot means a lot to us but as it stands now the larger club house we think is okay. We don’t like the larger maintenance building. We don’t like the outdoor seating area. We don’t like the big ball washing building. We don’t like the teacher shelter. We certainly don’t like the parking lot lights. The temporary shelter, we noticed the staff lets them keep it up for a year. We don’t understand that. We think that the City should give them their temporary shelter for about 4 months. That’s about how long it will take to build a nice building. The approval that changes the hours, obviously no. We’d like the materials still made out of wood. So council, you’re now asked to carefully consider that your own city’s general issuing standards. You’re number one, you know the changes in our opinion will most likely affect our safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of our neighborhood and therefore the City. We noticed the staff report glosses right over that and says this doesn’t affect it. Your number 3, the changes as proposed will change the essential character of our area. Your number 7, the changes will be detrimental because of traffic noise and light glare. Number 10. The changes are not aesthetically comparable with what we have out there now. And number 11, it will depreciate my property value. So I thank you very much for listening to me and I want to know if you have any other questions for me. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? David Gatto: Thanks very much for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? Gaye Guyton: Good evening. My name is Gaye Guyton and I also live kind of adjoining the golf course. 10083 Great Plains Boulevard. I’m here tonight as one of the people who was really supportive of this in the beginning. The idea was almost that the short course be a service to the community. A park. A place where kids and their parents and families and older people could come and play golf. Short 9 hole course. Very family friendly. Neighborhood friendly. The lighting was addressed at that point so that there’d be lights just on the outside of the building. Not big lights on the parking lot. The idea that we got from coming to these meetings when the original conditional use permit was put out was that this was not a big commercial venture. This was a service. This was for fun and this was to benefit the community. And I think, especially in light of the last meeting, which I won’t go over but I just have heard such things that are concerning to me where this golf course is getting compared to Interlachen. To Hazeltine. To Minnekahda and to Deer Run. Those are big businesses that were planned for as a business. Not something that was coming into a residential neighborhood that was already existing, and it seems almost as kind of visions of grandeur for this little 9 hole golf course where it started to try and think that it is something that it’s not. Where a country club would be. Where it would have longer hours of operation and need to be lighted because worried that people are going to be out on the course at night. So I would just ask that you please consider, or in light of the residents, what was originally planned that so many people were so excited about. How that’s going to impact us. The fact that in the last meeting they talked about a fleet of lawnmowers starting out about 5:00 in the morning to be able to prepare the course for the day’s golfers. That’s nothing that we were you know ready for and to really limiting to sunrise to sunset so that the people who were there first can enjoy having a golf course near us but not be City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 55 impacted negatively by the kinds of changes that they’re making and we would just appreciate… so thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Judy Walstad: Good evening. My name is Judy Walstad and I live at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard. Our home is on the south side of the golf course. We are directly behind the driving range. I just have one question I’m going to ask and then two short comments. I can’t remember the height of the new proposed club house, but I’m assuming that this upper part is not being used for any, it’s just a one story. Okay. So it’s not any business conducted on the top floors. I’m just asking because our house is tall and. It’s like a one story usage building. Kate Aanenson: …32 feet to the top of the cupola. This right here is to 27. Some office space above… Judy Walstad: Okay. The other question, I just wanted to make a comment about Rain, Snow and Shine which is the golf course down on 212. I know they do have lights but I also know that they operate at dark and I also know that there are no residents around there that would impact that so it’s a very convenient, and a desirable location for something of that nature. And the other comment I would just like to make is in the maintenance building. Depending on position of lighting, that could impact our homes. I would just like to ask the applicant to consider minimal lighting and to have it possible not shining on the front of our yard. That’s all so thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sharon Gatto: Hello Mayor and council. Sharon Gatto, 9631 Foxford so directly north of the course. We’ve been very excited to have the course, and as it’s been stated we’re losing that enthusiasm due to change. But as a golfer I play par 3’s and executives all summer long once a week. I play on a foursome. So here’s what I’ve experienced. First of all, I’ve never seen a teaching shelter on any of them, and I’ve taken some lessons on Braemar, which is a much larger course. They have maybe a tee box for the range. They have it set aside, or they have a couple holes we play on, but I’ve never seen a teaching shelter so I have to say from my experience that it’s unusual. Also, going to the liquor that might come about. Yes, most of them sell liquor but when I’m the last off the course, they’ve shut it down. So they have regular hours of liquor too. None of them usually go beyond dark, and sometimes I am playing the last off the course. I feel the teaching building might be a detriment if it was near Pioneer and seen, visibly seen by the public. So now it sounds like it’s further back. That might have been established…but we do have a unique corner of Chanhassen. Bringing in the executive course they’re in a sense intruding on the neighborhood so I feel they should be working in the best interest of the neighborhood and not in the best interest of their pocket books to try and get the most people in and the most amount of time and the most daylight hours. I think they need to be, blend in with the neighborhood residents stand out. And as far as, some of this sounds like we’re in downtown Chan. Where we’re in a business district and I’d just like you to recognize that we’re still a neighborhood that was there first and we would like the blending in to become a part of us, and we will use it. Sitting out on the deck at night, we don’t want to hear, we don’t want to see City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 56 lights. I mean that’s why as you mentioned, we bought into this neighborhood. We bought into the large lots. The quietness and we would like to maintain that and we appreciate your help with that, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Steve Shipley: My name is Steve Shipley. I live in Lake Riley Woods, at 261 Eastwood Court. I’m also a President and owner of POS Plus located at 8185 Upland Circle in Chanhassen. I had an experience about 5 years ago of building a property in Chan. I was green. I didn’t know what was involved and I became accustomed very quickly on permits and all those different things that you had to have in order to build a building. I spent thousands of dollars on a building permit. My understanding is those dollars were used to pay city officials to come and do inspections. I also spent a lot, thousands of dollars for a bike and trail fee. So I’m pretty familiar with the building process. When you take a look at the lights that Mr. Halla’s installed, I don’t think he had a permit to do that. He just went ahead and did it. You take a look at some of the e- mails that were written, that are on record, and especially about a couple people here, he’s not been a very good neighbor. He doesn’t respect people’s private driveways. He does not respect the dumping of certain materials, of which I’m not too sure of. So what I’m getting at is you’re allowing a person to operate a business like this and he seems to be kind of a cowboy. That he does pretty much what he wants to do. So I would ask that you give that some consideration. Especially on the lights. I mean this was, the application was dated January 6th of 2006. Those things were put in last fall. We just kind of had, went ahead and did business on his own. Also, when I built my building I was required to have an area for garbage. I do not see any area on this to hold garbage containers. Alright so, again we need continuity in what people are supposed to do so I’d just ask that you take that all into consideration. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? I see we have a representative here from our Planning Commission, Mr. McDonald. Is there anything you’d like to follow up on after public comment here. The course of action that took place at the Planning Commission. Councilman Lundquist: Come and talk on our birthday Jerry. Mayor Furlong: Happy Birthday. Jerry McDonald: Thanks a lot. That’s it, tell the whole city. I’m Jerry McDonald. I was the Acting Chair of the Planning Commission and I guess one of the things that happened at our meeting, same thing’s happened at your meeting. We ended up running rather late that night and there were a lot of issues that came up. I think paramount to all of us looked at was this did seem to be a change from what was originally there. And we had some problems I think grasping what that was based on what the neighbors have told us. What the plans were. It did appear that this was more or less creeping commercialism within an area that was residential. We’re very sensitive to that, as you’re well aware. We went through this with the Reykjavik’s thing. We’ve been through it a couple of times but there are certain neighborhoods that are unique within a city and we try to respect that. It was the same thing here. The motion, there was a lot of confusion about the motions, the way it came out. The intent after polling everybody on the commission, we all agreed to vote against any expansion and we probably went over what our City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 57 jurisdiction was and we probably went over what we were allowed to do, but the intent was to turn it down. That’s why the motion that came before, we did not vote on staff’s motion because we rejected that. We came up with the lower lights. I think we came up with 4 foot height, and basically turned down most of the rest of the commercial application. The expansions and those things. Those motions failed before us. The only two people who voted for the motions were the gentleman who made the motion and… That was pretty much it. The rest of us were against it. That’s what happened at the commission. After hearing all the comments from the neighborhood and everything such as that, you know I had made the comment that they actually needed to work with their neighbors because there was no support at the Planning Commission, which is unusual. Generally someone will come up and will support, there were compromises that were made back and forth. I’m glad to see today that they’ve decided to at least compromise on the lights but that was something that was missing at that meeting was the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing. And I think we picked up on that as a commission and that was one of the reasons why we rejected the plans. It did, as I say, it got very confusing because it was almost midnight and I think that we probably were not as clear in our objections and why that we should have been but the bottom line of all this was that we did not see the support there. It appeared that this was something that was different from what was originally sold to everybody and we didn’t understand why the changes were being made. That was not made clear to us and again there was no consensus within the neighborhood to support these changes so based upon that, that’s why we rejected what staff had put together and we came up with a proposal that probably doesn’t you know beat the mustard of what we should have done but the intent was that we didn’t think the plans should go forward. If you have any questions about any particulars. Mayor Furlong: Thank you, any questions? Very good, thanks. Jerry McDonald: Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Lot of comments. Lot of information. I guess as we finish up here, we’ve heard a lot of public comments this evening that was consistent with and covered a lot of the areas covered in the public hearing as well, and I guess response from staff with that or with other things or information that you heard prior to your original report. Kate Aanenson: Well I guess, we agreed that the building should be smaller. I think we’re all in concurrence with most the changes except for the driving, teaching area. That’s fine if the council choose to remove that. We recommended down sizing the building. Mayor Furlong: Right. Kate Aanenson: We also felt the ball washing machine seemed excessive and did recommend denial of that. We also have the same concerns and have from the beginning. We recommended the denial of the extension of hours and I think the concern’s valid that it might become kind of a quasi hangout as opposed to ancillary to a golf related use which is the intent of that. I think the one issue we still have disagreement on. Just some other thoughts I had taking notes, I guess for the square foot of the building, I think it’d be prudent to ask for what’s, what has been done before with the city attorney, what’s going inside the building. Even though we’re going to have City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 58 storage, if we’re building it to put the sand in and the salt, we want to see what’s going in. Even at the smaller size. I think it might be prudent to deal with what’s being actually stored in the maintenance building so we can have some control over that. The 4 months for the temporary building. Typically a commercial building might take a little bit longer. That was the intent so I’d agree, it probably doesn’t need to be 6 months. We can figure out a reasonable time. What that should be. A temporary building. Sounds like they want to get some revenue out of that yet this spring while they’re building the other building so we can look at a reasonable timeframe for that. So really I think that, there’s a lot of concurrence on. The square footage of the building itself, an extra veranda, I’ll let the council decide on that but I think the other one that I still have concerns on, and I guess I’d ask for maybe the city attorney’s input too and that would be having no parking lot lighting at all. We talked about a couple of things. One is security on the building and then you know trying to separate that. I did look at the photometrics and actually the brightest spot is right underneath those lights. It drops off pretty quickly when you get to the end of the parking lot. It’s already at a half foot so the property line, you’re at zero quite a ways in from the property line. Obviously there will be some lighting if we turn the lights off at 10:00. Then we still need some security lights. We will through a different type of security lighting, that would be something that we could look at to make sure there’s nobody in there but still security in the building. We’d be willing to look at that with the Crime Prevention Specialist. Mayor Furlong: Okay quick question. Help me understand with regard to the lighting and the photometrics. When we speak to what can be seen at a certain point, a half candle. Is that the amount of illumination that’s coming directly from the light itself or is that a reflective light off of? Kate Aanenson: It’s coming from the light itself. Mayor Furlong: From the light itself. Kate Aanenson: Right. So really once you get to the edge of the parking lot and you’re at a half a foot, once you get beyond that it drops off at a pretty much. Mayor Furlong: You say half a foot. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, half a foot candle. I’m sorry. Yeah, so it’s dropping off. It’s relatively, you know even when you, there’s also ambient light. If you’re downtown it’s a lot different than you are out in an area that’s isolated. For example, Bandimere Park has taller lights and so those are probably in excess of, they might be a little taller than 30 feet. I mean those are much higher. Much brighter. Different type of lighting. Maybe Lake Susan I guess would probably be a better one. When you’re playing softball in the dark. It’s a different type of lighting than we’d have for parking lot lighting because there you’re trying to do a function underneath, but to separate the security at the time that the parking lot, and there were some other ways to look at security of the building. There’s two approaches for people coming and going. Then also secure the building as the city manager mentioned. You want to make sure there’s not, it’s not an nuisance down there. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 59 Mayor Furlong: What causes the light noise, if you allow me to use that expression in terms of adjacent property owners? I mean obviously if a parking lot is lit, you’ll be able to see what’s lit. That’s reflective light. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s a lot of interesting discussion on that. We actually, we have a former councilman that was very interested in that and spent a lot of time looking at too much light, and down in that area where there isn’t a lot of light, it’s going to seem like a lot because it’s already kind of a dark area. Whereas when you’re in the downtown, there’s already street lights, parking lot lights, so the spillover is more, while it gets dark in certain areas, it’s not the same so I think it’s just the fact that there’s no lights down there now. I believe that the nursery probably has lights on their buildings right now. On the 101 side. These people are on the north side of Pioneer and it seems that some of the people on Delphinium gets, we hear complaints on that too. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Thoughts. Comments. Additional questions. Councilman Peterson: Where do you start? Mayor Furlong: Yeah. I’ll get the discussion started here with what has been expressed I think accurately is that there’s a change in scope in terms of how this golf course is anticipated to be operated versus what came through a couple years ago. We heard references and it was mentioned tonight by one of the residents that spoke, references to the town course and Hazeltine and Deer Run and others. Those are different levels of courses than I think what was, this community was originally discussed. Councilman Peterson: Well but is that really true because if they’re going to put somebody on the course every 8 minutes, did that change from 2 years ago or a year ago? I would beg to differ but the number of people on the course hasn’t changed. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well but they’re going to make a faster course where before it was, when I was on the Planning Commission it was supposed to be a teaching course for kids and a place for families to go and have fun and so now it sounds more intense where you’d better know how to golf. You’d better get going. There’s no time to just kind of putz around and you know practice your swing or whatever. I think it probably has changed to a faster moving course. Councilman Lundquist: Your handicap is directly, adversely proportional to the length of time to takes you to play a hole. Mayor Furlong: Is that a technical term? Councilman Peterson: But to my point, there may not be, there may be 50% more people there likely. It’s maybe 10% more people, I don’t know. Mayor Furlong: No, it may not be the number of people. I guess what I was referring to is the nature of the buildings. The maintenance. The, you know the amount of activity dealing with the operation of the course. Not necessarily the number of golfers going through. You know City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 60 that’s where I see a change and it is a function I think of the change in operation. Change of management ownership that’s occurring here. Councilman Peterson: And that clearly has changed. I would agree with you on that. Should I continue or should. Mayor Furlong: That’d be fine. You know, we’ve got a number of issues before us and at some point it might make sense to I guess maybe start with some general thoughts and then go down the list and see where we are and if we’re in agreement or not. Either with staff’s recommendation. With the applicant’s request. With the residents or Planning Commission. I mean we may be some back and forth, depending on where we are I think it makes sense to evaluate what the motions that we have existing and we might, you know if we’re in agreement with all of staff’s recommendation, then we have motions in the staff report tonight too to move forward. But there may be some other things so that’s why I’m saying. You know maybe we start with some general comments and then make sure we get an understanding of where all of us are on each of the different items. Councilman Peterson: I can do some general comments. The balance that I struggled with is that this is, at the end of the day a business and we want to help businesses succeed within reason. And if this business is now asking for some changes that are reasonable, which is the ultimate question, to enhance the success and the viability of the business, then I think we need to consider that. So that being said, that’s what I’m doing. I’m considering their request because I want to have a successful business in Chanhassen. I don’t think anybody wants it to fail. So you know I’ll kind of go through points as presented. The club house I don’t think the 6 foot variance is substantial and you know I think we’re getting a much higher quality building than I think this neighborhood better also so I certainly haven’t got a problem with that. The outdoor seating area seems to be reasonable. The maintenance building seems to be unreasonable. You know I look at it and I look at the design of it, you know I see, I see a huge building for what they’re talking about but yet if they’re taking stuff from outside and putting it inside, and we get a high quality exterior of the building, then is that better? And that’s something I want to hear more about is, you know I think everybody would agree, much rather have stuff inside stored out of the view versus having stuff outside stored which they are certainly capable of doing. You know right now it’s designed for 68 by 120. You’ve got, there’s a 40 foot work bench. I kind of shake my head at that. There’s supposed to be 10 golf carts in there. Without the expansion so it does seem to be over kill and I’m not of course an expert but just logic says that 68 by 120 with a 24 foot addition seems to be an unreasonable request. Now, what I don’t know is, should it be 35 8 and can you accomplish that? I don’t want to get into that. I’d rather have staff and the applicant figure that out but, and that may be having them spend more time presenting a succinct idea of what’s inside and what’s outside. If we don’t give them any more than the 30 by 60, where does that mean that’s going to be outside? And ultimately the residents around there prefer it to be a bigger building and have less outside, so I don’t think we’re going to answer that tonight. Ball washing building. You know again that seems overly large and I think we can downsize that. And what we don’t want to do is have an outhouse style out there either, so you want to have something that takes care of their needs but not, not necessarily granting them all their 30 by 24. The teaching shelter, you know I’ll look for other comments on that. I don’t know whether or not 16 by 40 certainly seems to be an awfully large building also. The City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 61 temporary structure. I’ll go back to lighting in a second. The temporary structure certainly is logical to ask for that and grant that. We can probably put in here something that 30 days after the CO granted on the main building, the other one has to be gone. Or whatever day that would be but you want to give them a building up until the time that their other one is ready. The building materials, I don’t feel any reason to move away from our building standards on that one, particularly in the residential area. Hours of operation. I guess if you would have asked me to interpret sunrise to sunset, there’s a meteorological definition to that and then there’s a real definition. Even the FAA has a twilight definition too so, you know I would probably say a half hour before and after sunset and sunrise. I think that’s actually the legal definition from an FAA standpoint. Defining twilight. I would assume that people would golf until they can’t golf anymore. If sunset was at 8:57 that day, and you can still get a half hour of reasonable light, then they can be out golfing so, I think there’s a reasonable summation that can be made there. To lighting, clearly don’t like the 25 footers. You know I think, I think it would be reasonable to have some kind of lighting, whether it’s low voltage landscape lighting or whether it’s the 14 footers. You know I’ve historically been kind of biased. I don’t like a lot of light. I think our ordinance is probably more than what we need. I was the one that was the champion to turn off the street lights so I’m coming from the opposite extreme. But I think we can work on that and give something the residents can live with. The low voltage landscape lighting that can clearly light the parking lot can be a very attractive amenity and done well, as well as the 14 or 15 footers can look very nice too. If they’re down lit and they’re not going to be offensive to the neighborhood, and they’ll certainly light the parking lot. You know in closing I think it’s been brought up a couple different times. We can’t forget that this is a commercial business going in a residential area and that’s, you know that’s the balance that we all respectfully have to take on tonight and, but we decided that we’re going to allow this commercial business in here and we now we need to have it be successful. We need to have it look good and some of these requests are clearly reasonable. Some of them I think need some more work. And whether or not that means tabling it to get a better definition and request of what’s inside and outside. What the lighting is and what it’s going to look like. You know I’m certainly open to that. And I’m obviously open up to listening to what my fellow council people and mayor would have to say about it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I thought about 10 minutes ago was I’d like to see this tabled also just because Mr. Johnson I think has said he was willing to compromise on some issues. Kind of a give and take thing to try and give a reasonable proposal going. But if that doesn’t happen I have to say that I kind of took my, what I thought was important, you know I’m going to start at the top and I, for me it’s maybe too simplistic to say that if you don’t change your hours of operation, you keep them where they were originally placed, then you really don’t need additional lighting because there really isn’t that much of a safety concern then so, keep the hours where they’re supposed to be then for me there is no lighting issue. Yeah, it is a business and I want it to be successful but when it first came in it wasn’t necessarily built to be a big business. It was supposed to be just a mom and pop recreational golf course and I think that if these proposals that are before us now had come in 2 or 3 years ago, they would have been addressed and probably not, it would have been denied 4 years ago so I really go back to that time when I was there and I have to respect what we did there and I just always try to think about City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 62 who, you know who was there first. You know the neighbors were there first. You bought your lots because it’s quiet. It’s dark. It’s private and I have to respect that. If the golf course was there first and there was development coming in, I’d probably have a different view but that’s kind of where I stand on these issues. I’m sorry but I really don’t have a problem with the bigger maintenance building if it does keep junk from being in sight. I think your neighborhoods are better off having stuff enclosed. It looks neater. It looks cleaner. There’s always an attempt for crime to come in and steal things or kids come in and drive where they do. So I guess for the building stuff I just, I don’t see it as that big of a deal. The ball machine, I’ve never seen a ball washing building so I can not comment as to what it should look like or what it should be. You know I think if we hold the golf course to architectural standards and make the buildings look decent, I just don’t see how you can have a problem with that basically. Making the club house bigger once again, I think the draft of what I saw, it’s an improvement from what there is now. Someone said it, something you could put your pony up to and go have a beer or something. You know kind of something out of the wild west and I think we’re probably more progressive in Chanhassen than that so I don’t have a problem with making the club house bigger and the outside seating seems reasonable. We only have 3 months out of the year to enjoy the outside and I think we should be allowed to do it as much as we can. And the building material once again I just think we need to hold to those standards we set back 4 years ago and keep it looking neat and nice. That’s what I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist: I’m kind of probably a unique situation. Mr. Saatzer first proposed this, he contacted me and so I was, spent several hours talking to, meeting with Mr. Saatzer. Helped facilitate that with the city staff so I’m very familiar with the original proposal. The vision behind it and what Ron was trying to do. And Bethany as you just said, I think the key point for me really is had this proposal that we were looking at now come through 2 years ago, I’m quite certain I would have voted against it so, that’s really where I go back to is you know the unfortunate thing is that there’s been some you know things business wise that have happened between the current applicant and the previous applicant, and you know things happen and things happen for reasons. At this point I don’t feel obligated to approve any of the changes because you know those are decisions that are made outside of us and I think to make a decision like that and then come and say hey, I’m not going to be successful unless you give me these things is you know, it’s really not our issue because we didn’t force the change to begin with. I don’t want to see a business fail, but you know we didn’t cause the original issues so I don’t feel compelled to get in the middle of that. You know Mr. Shipley made some comments I think, there’s a lot of stuff that goes on. There’s a lot of history. There’s a lot of things. When I look at this proposal I’m looking at it on the merits of the proposal, not with the parties that are involved or not involved. It’s not required to be a good neighbor as a business. It’s certainly encouraged and appreciated but it’s not in any way required. When we look at the difference between, you know one thing we fact a lot of times is the who was there first and of course we have the famous not in my back yard. I mean every time we put an infill development in, you know we get 300 e- mails and calls from residents that don’t want to see the wildlife and everything else destroyed that was you know living 50 feet down in their front yard before their house was built so, you know however that said, in this particular piece I’m not concerned with necessarily who was there first but with what the character of that neighborhood is. And when you look at things like City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 63 large lights or 15 foot, 25 foot, whatever it is, you might have a half a candle, foot candle at the edge of it but you can’t deny when you stand 500 feet away from the edge of that that you’re going to see lights there. You’re not going to be able to see the sky and the things the same so, so overall I keep going back to the major changes. It’s not the original vision that was there. To go down specifically, I think the club house and the veranda is not that big of a deal. I’m okay with that. The maintenance building, I guess I’m kind of in the same place as Craig. 60 by 30, is that big enough? Well, you know maybe. Maybe not. 68 by 120. That seems a little bit excessive so is 1,800 the magic number? Is 2,000 the magic number? You know I don’t know. I think again it all depends on what you’re looking at. The ball washing and some of that stuff, I mean I think is just unreasonable. Unreasonably large for that scale of course. The teaching shelter I think if tastefully done, it seems to be in a location that’s not too intrusive. I can be convinced. The lighting, I would say I’m either would lean towards ground, low voltage ground lighting to allow some visibility you know so that you can see if there’s a person in there or if there’s a car parked in there rather than pitch black. Just for safety of the people I would prefer to have I think lights, safety lights around the building and some of that and keep that area as dark as possible. I think our ordinance Kate as you stated doesn’t require, we have maximums but not minimums and I really want that area to remain kind of dark and secluded and to have that overall character. But still be sensitive to the fact that you know, there’s a business there. There’s a wide open area there. If the deputy drives by or a resident just happens to be walking, you want to be able to see if there’s something that doesn’t look out of place there so, if there’s a way to do that, but you know not make it intrusive. Temporary building. I think we want to be real careful there. Maybe put some stipulations on that building. Has to be on the parking lot or something so that we don’t get into a hassle about you know, the building is there. We’ve given a Certificate of Occupancy and now we get into a scuffle about you know when did we come out? Are we going to have to walk in there with a crane and actually physically remove that or how that works so, let’s be careful and put some conditions maybe to make that beneficial to that more to pull that out. Building materials, definitely not in favor of that variance. Hours of operation. Craig, I’m with you there. I think that reasonable, when I think of sunset to sundown, I think of you know if you can see with the naked eye without lights, that’s reasonable to call it sunset, sun up to sunset. You know again to preserve the neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood, you know I think leaving it at sunrise to sunset is fine there so, and so just to summarize again, I think my biggest issue with this as I see it, as a vision of what we started with and what we’re at now are two completely different things and that’s where my biggest problem with the entire proposal is. There’s been a change that was not initiated by the City. Was initiated by a lessee and an owner that’s now initiated, you know pushing this change and it’s considerably different than what that was and again had this come in 2 years ago, I would have voted against it because it just doesn’t fit that character of that neighborhood. Those are my comments. Mayor Furlong: Okay, we’re three comments. Three different sides of the issue here so, maybe we’ll get four and make a box. I think the number, a number of the comments that have been made already go back to and I think where Councilman Lundquist finished up is the change. It’s different and the question is, is that difference, does it matter where the initial issue is? The City didn’t have an issue? You know I travel to what’s a reasonable use here in terms of whether the requests are meeting our ordinances and our comprehensive plans. Try to go back to that. I think that there have to be some reason and judgment in that and we’ll go down the list and I City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 64 think in some cases there are reasonable requests and other cases there are unreasonable ones. I was very pleased to hear tonight the applicant’s offer to withdraw the lights in the parking lot. That was an issue that was clearly a struggle for some of the residents. Perhaps there’s some compromise there that is in the offing now that did not exist at the Planning Commission meeting, which I think goes back to some of the comments we heard this evening was, some lack of cooperation between the applicant and the neighbors. And I think we said earlier, there’s no requirement to do that. We have found it successful in the past when that occurs but there’s no requirement to do that and so sometimes when that doesn’t happen you get a little more choppy as you’re going through the public process here in terms of the Planning Commission and City Council and I think we’re witnessing that tonight. Overall you know what we’re trying to do here and what I think we’re coming with different perspectives and we heard it tonight too is the property owner, this is a conditional use with the property. A legal use to put a golf course in this land and they’ve got a right to operate their business, as most business owners do, and yet we’ve got the neighborhood there, the surrounding property owners that want to maintain their current lifestyle. Their quiet enjoyment and how do we balance that and try to minimize or eliminate any impacts of the neighbors, while at the same time providing the property owner to make sure they follow our ordinance and continue forward. That being said I think there’s some judgments on these things that allow us to do some of that balancing. The club house I think is you know given what is being proposed, it’s not significant. The significance there is in the design that I see and the look of it and I think that will likely be an improvement from a view standpoint, from a look. The maintenance building, I guess what I heard this evening I just don’t, have not heard the justification for the need. I’ve heard some statements but I haven’t heard anything that justifies the need for that. Just with the work that the staff has done to try to evaluate is this a reasonable request or not, which I think is a very good way to go about it, what do other golf courses have and this one was clearly significantly larger and I just can’t, I’m not, I can’t see it. Is the 1,800 enough? It was a couple years ago and while there is change, you know the thought went into and Councilman Lundquist you said, you’re personally familiar with a number of discussions that took place. You know that a lot of thought went into the operation of a 9 hole executive course. Par what, 29. That’s not a Hazeltine. It’s not a Town Course. It’s not one at Deer Run. It’s not those. It’s a different type of offering of golf than what’s there. The ball wash building, I’m not looking for you know a couple of biffy’s next to each other but from a size standpoint, you know that’s what you see. You just don’t, I can’t get my arms around any justification for a building that size, nearly 800 square feet if I did my math right, for a piece of equipment that distributes buckets and balls. You know it’s just, it’s just not there. So I’m struggling with that. I agree with staff on that. There should, it should be incorporated. The shelter building, I mean it’s far removed. I’m struggling with the justification for each of these. Based upon any sort of need. I just don’t, I just can’t get there. The temporary building, I agree with the comments made this evening and you know I think that should be allowed. We do that with a number of property owners. We did that with Lifetime Fitness for example so they could start selling memberships before their clubhouse was built. Here, putting some restrictions on it, I think it was mentioned 30 days after occupancy or I think certain number of months from the approval makes some sense to require that and to make sure that’s done. You know the building materials I think, I don’t see any reason to change there. Hours of operation, we’ve had some discussion there. The concern that I heard more from residents there was the lawnmowers going early in the morning and people sticking around on the patio talking and working after night. It would seem to me to try to accommodate that by not, and I understand Councilman Peterson City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 65 your thought about a half hour before, half hour after. That’s pretty typical. Maybe what I would suggest for a compromise there is to start at sunrise, rather than half hour before so there’s not lawnmowers out there running around before sunrise, but allow the half hour after sunset because it is still twilight, especially during the golfing season. You can see the ball and you keep hitting and you know for a 9 hole course, you’re probably going to zip around it pretty quickly but that will allow somebody starting an hour or so before sunset to continue and finish up. And so I might throw that out as a potential balance there between the business owners desire to operate a business, which they should do, and the concern from some of the residents and neighbors with regard to noise or other problems with regard to that. I think I mentioned the lighting. It seems to me there can be some compromise there that will work and still provide some light. Anything I believe would have to be any, well it would have to be designed such that it’s shielded. It’d have to be down lighting. Shielded, which I think was talked about here, but to find some way to minimize what’s going to be seen. It’s going to be different. It is, even lights on a building there is going to be different than what exists now. Lights on a building, even if they’re shielded will generally be shining out. These lights will generally be shining down so perhaps there’s some benefit to down lighting versus up lighting but it looks like there might be some compromise there, which I’d kind of like to see. So it’s, this is a tough one because it is a change. It’s a change in scope in how this business is going to be operated within their rights to operate a business, not only check that and balance that from a reasonableness standpoint given the neighbors and their rights to minimize any disruption to their enjoyment of their property. So I think those are my thoughts. Any follow-up? It seems to me, was I correct that everybody was generally consistent with the proposed clubhouse as we talked through? With that. I would keep that. The outdoor seating. Veranda with the patio generally okay with that as well. Maintenance building, I heard generally not okay but justify it. If we can get some, if we know what’s going in there from a justification standpoint and need, and we’ve got documented need to operate a 9 hole golf course, what’s there and how they’re planning to operate, I think you know 1,800 square feet may not be appropriate. Something bigger might work but, I mean is that generally or? Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Are you pretty firm on the 1,800? Councilman Lundquist: Well no. I mean that’s not a magic number but I think my, if it gets much bigger than 1,800, you’re going to get less and less support from me. The farther away that number gets from 1,800, the less support I’ll have. Mayor Furlong: Kind of like lighting the property. Yep, no and I’m 100% with you on that. 100% with you. You know outside storage, we want to minimize that but to the extent that it’s not visible, it may be prudent to have some things stored outside as well. Ball washing, I didn’t hear a lot of support for that. It’s current size, is that correct? Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely… Mayor Furlong: Eliminate or coordinate that in with the existing building or different proximity and significantly reduce. Shelter building. Again, thoughts there. Clarify. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 66 Councilman Lundquist: I can go either way. I’m just, I mean in the spirit of compromise, I guess we can allow that. If it wasn’t there, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. Mayor Furlong: Sounds like with, it’s far enough away or it’s far enough towards the interior of the property that I don’t think the residents have a significance about that. Lighting. I think we had 5 different opinions out of 4 of us on that one so, looking to do something there. It sounds like the applicant’s willing to come up with some compromises and I think we’d like to pursue those. At the same time look at recognizing that some light, whether it’s landscape light, I heard mentioned I think or something else might be something that might work. Temporary structure, I think you heard some thoughts and ideas on that. Is everybody generally consistent with that? Something more limiting than and/or clear as to the length of time, likely shorter than what, the 12 months in the report. Building material I heard general support for what was, for no change there. And hours of operation, I didn’t hear a lot of support for the request of 6:00 to 11:00. We talked about sunrise to sunset. Half hour before, half hour after. Is there some thoughts there or, we had 2 or 3 thoughts pulled out? Councilman Peterson: I’m not indifferent to what your recommendation was to do sunrise and then. Mayor Furlong: Half hour after sunset? Is that what, is that the FAA definition for twilight. Councilman Peterson: Well both. Morning because you can see before sunrise so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, understand. Councilman Peterson: It goes back to do we want mowing lawn at 6:00 a.m.? The answer’s no. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, it’s one thing to see. It’s another thing to be, to hear and. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do we have us the ordinance that regulates when they can be mowing or when people can start, commercial businesses can start mowing? I mean do they fall into that category? Councilman Lundquist: We let garbage trucks out before 7:00 in the morning. Kate Aanenson: We have a nuisance ordinance. Mayor Furlong: So let’s take a look at that then and see what. Kate Aanenson: We’ll apply those standards. Mayor Furlong: Give us some guidance there. Okay. Councilman Lundquist: Like I say, overall I would tend to be more restrictive on that than less. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 67 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments? It sounds like here is we’re moving towards a tabling so the staff can work with the applicant on a couple of these things and also make some modifications to the recommendation. Any other comments or thoughts or questions you have for clarification? Kate Aanenson: Point of order before you table. Our next regular meeting, as you just approved would be in a week. Mayor Furlong: Yes. Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure we can, we may be able to turn it around. Tomorrow. But otherwise. Mayor Furlong: If we can’t, are we running out of time? Kate Aanenson: Yeah…otherwise it will be pushed to April 10th. I do want to get some comments from the sheriff’s office. …that’s fine, I just want to make sure that the crime prevention specialist and the sheriff’s office comment and a couple other things too. Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. Kate Aanenson: But I’m just not sure of the turn around in one week so, I’d like to go to April 10th, if that’s okay with the applicant. Mayor Furlong: You know I think a lot of these issues, you know a little more thought is fine than try to push it through. I guess the question is, do we have the time to do that. Roger Knutson: I believe, according to the application it says they’ve waived the time lines. Maybe we just could have them confirm that they’re okay with us taking this up, at this point until April 10th. Don Halla: Could we have an approval of the club house building so we could get construction going on that? The temporary. Roger Knutson: You really can’t piecemeal it. Sandy Halla: Even when we’ve had a discussion, we’d be willing to do whatever it is that you needed…do what it is that you wanted us to do… Mayor Furlong: Ma’am, I’m sorry. Could you come up to the microphone and just give us your name and address. Sandy Halla: …we knew that the house really was what we thought everybody would think would be the right size and that would be something that people would enjoy being in. And that wasn’t overly done we didn’t think… What we really worked on was trying to have a place that folks…to be able to do that so this particular thing, I don’t think that we would change it any City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 68 way whatsoever and it didn’t sound like anybody else here would change it. That there wasn’t any reason that… We really wanted this to be something that all the young children, and we thought…we’ve got grandchildren here and to go play golf at the age of 16 or whatever… So that it isn’t the dollars that we’re trying…and there’s so many places that really aren’t really affordable so that we were trying to do that. And as far as what we were talking about now with the equipment, I think that we felt when we came here, we didn’t want a great big thing. We’ll have to…and we wanted it to be so that people could use it…handicap and are getting a little older and want to have something there… So I think that anything that you think that we shouldn’t be doing now, we’re okay with it. If we’ve gone to no lights, John Kosmas is gone right now, the architect that was here last time, and…what was okay to do…one person wanted it there and the next person didn’t want it at all and as far as we’re concerned, there’s soft lights going down and if nobody gets hurt or killed, you know…that’s all that really we’re talking about. We don’t need people out at night or early morning or whenever else it happens to be, so that that’s not what we’re looking for. …okay, I think that’s too big. Fine. I think that we didn’t, I don’t know how we got into that, we didn’t think that actually…would be as important as the golf ball situation to be able to get golf balls back out there… If that’s all it is…so that’s all we are trying to look at it and so it isn’t that we have to have anything…we want to do. What we consider a good place there and not what some people…how that would make it work with what people really wanted and so that’s where we’re at so we feel, feel free to say we don’t want it or whatever else that would be helpful… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Councilman Peterson: What I’m hearing is we can probably get this done by Monday. Kate, the only thing that seems to be, the struggle might be the police. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’ll do our best to get it on there… Mayor Furlong: Let’s see if we can get it done. Kate Aanenson: …you might not get it out in Wednesday’s packet but we can commit to get it out and keep it on Monday, that’s fine. Mayor Furlong: Well let’s do what we can. It sounds like they want to, they’re flexible and you’ve heard out comments and unfortunately we have a short turn around here but, which will put some strain on you but. Kate Aanenson: I just need to make something, say something for the record. We’ve had 2 or 3 different people working on 2 or 3 different opinions. Just heard another opinion now so I think it’s prudent that we get it in writing as the City Attorney said and button down that it’s all consistent and this is what happened at the Planning Commission. We’re late, in the 11th hour so tabling I think is the prudent thing. Mayor Furlong: No, and that’s where we’re going because we want to make sure that we’ve got something that’s clear that the applicant and the residents and the council know what we’re talking about and what we’re voting on so, I think that is important. We’ll try to work as quickly City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 69 as we can for the applicant but at the same time we’ve got to make sure that we’re, that we’re getting everything covered and so, if there is a delay we apologize for that but we want to make sure that we don’t have confusion down the road either, which would not be good for anybody so. Sandy Halla: …I understand that…so they’re not firing up the golf course carts… Mayor Furlong: Right, understand. Thank you. Anything else from staff? Any other comments from council? Todd Gerhardt: I just wanted to note one thing. The original plan did show the trash enclosures be screened so. Kate Aanenson: It is addressed in the staff report. And we’ll follow up on those sort of things. Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Then at this point is there a motion to table? Roger Knutson: If you could just wait a moment. Kate Aanenson: We need just a signature. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: While we’re waiting too then, when this staff report becomes available, you can go to the city’s web site and download upgraded project and the new staff report will be done hopefully by the end of the week. Mayor Furlong: Okay, to the extent possible there might be a new cover memo but if we can red line the existing…so we can see changes. Kate Aanenson: Will do. Mayor Furlong: Excellent. I know you usually do but that way residents and the applicant as well, and the council members. David Gatto: Can we work as a task force with these folks? I mean as I hear them, when they’re talking to the sheriff and it’s going to go. I mean are we going to be able to work with these folks at all? Mayor Furlong: Well I think from a process standpoint certainly that’s able. There’s no requirement that the property owner work with the neighbors. I think what we heard tonight was an accommodation to some of the issues that the neighbors were raising. David Gatto: Well it’d be nice if we could come here and say we support it because otherwise we’ll come back and otherwise you might…what we’re considering doing if you pass it. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 70 Kate Aanenson: I just want to be clear, I think we understand they don’t want lights. My point is I want to make sure that if the public safety says something, this council has that information. I think everybody understands that you don’t want lights. David Gatto: We’ve said what we’re going to say now and I mean I volunteered to be on a task force. We want to work with you folks. We want to. Kate Aanenson: Okay, no. We’d be happy to follow up on that. Get that information that we have prior to. Mayor Furlong: I mean there’s nothing that precludes the applicant and the neighbors getting together and meeting if they want to. At the same time I think from a staff standpoint, which is what our objective here is tonight after all the comments we’ve seen, is to try to keep this process moving forward in a manner that’s consistent with what we’ve heard and what we’re trying to accomplish here for everybody and balancing that. So. David Gatto: And we’re all in the community together. Mayor Furlong: Yes sir. David Gatto: We want to work with you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Knutson, we’re okay now? Roger Knutson: Yes we are. Mayor Furlong: To move forward if there is a desire to table. Is there a motion to table? Councilman Peterson: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table the Site Plan Amendment and variances for the construction of a golf course, Halla Greens, located on the southeast corner of Great Plains Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you and thank you to everybody sticking around tonight and contributing to the discussion. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 71 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: In your bin upstairs there’s a meeting on March 16th, 7:00 with the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. It’s, they put an informational packet together to kind of explain the history of the watershed district. What their intent is into the future so they’re looking for council members to show up for this meeting so, if you want to attend on this, I will be there representing the City. I’ve already sat through it once with the city managers from the watershed district and now they’re inviting the councils to attend to hear Mr. Hicks presentation. So if you have time, might want to put it on your schedule. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you want to talk about, shoot an email out to me… Todd Gerhardt: You should have the letter… Councilwoman Tjornhom: Oh okay, I haven’t gotten to my mail so. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and I’m sure that’s what this is and I will send out an e-mail so that’s all I have Mayor. Mayor Furlong: This is the Riley-Purgatory? Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and they’re working on a number of projects in the city and with storm water management I know is the things that they’re doing. Todd Gerhardt: They’re investing probably close to a million dollars right now in our community, putting storm water ponds down in the Rice Marsh Lake area. Behind the Lotus Garden Center to help clean up Lake Riley so. I will be in attendance and. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Anything else? Todd Gerhardt: No, that’s all I had. Mayor Furlong: Any questions of Mr. Gerhardt? Very good. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: Is there an EDA meeting immediately following our council? Justin Miller: Real quick. Mayor Furlong: So that is coming up here. Anything else to come before the council this evening? Again for those still watching, our next council meeting will be next Monday night, which is a change from our normal fourth Monday of the month. We will be meeting on a third Monday. So if there’s nothing else to come before the council, is there a motion to adjourn? City Council Meeting –March 13, 2006 72 Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 20, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 8:25 p.m.. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt and Councilman Lundquist STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, and Justin Miller KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY, POLICE CONTRACT BENCHMARKS REPORT. Todd Gerhardt updated the City Council on the benchmarks established for the police contract with Carver County. Sheriff Bud Olson explained the sheriff’s office new reporting format which makes the numbers consistent with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s numbers. Todd Gerhardt noted that currently prosecution rates are not tracked. Sheriff Olson stated the State will mandate in the near future that prosecution numbers be tracked. Todd Gerhardt reviewed the highlights from the 2003-2005 numbers. Sergeant Jim Olson clarified how numbers were affected in 2005 when categories were changed. Mayor Furlong asked if the numbers reflect that deputies are being better trained. Todd Gerhardt stated how the tracking numbers will assist the City in determining the need for additional deputies and/or patrol hours in the future. Councilman Peterson asked about turnover of deputies in the city of Chanhassen and country wide. Sergeant Olson explained how the traffic control education safety car is used to target certain areas in the city. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for an explanation of how the sheriff’s department determines where in the city to place the unmarked vehicle. Todd Gerhardt explained the increase in prosecution revenues. Sheriff Olson explained trends in white collar crimes and the need for additional investigative services county wide, but also in the City of Chanhassen. He reviewed the case statistics for Chanhassen in 2005 which shows a need for these additional investigative services. He noted that the sheriff’s office was looking to partner with the City of Chanhassen, along with asking for additional services from the Carver County Board. Councilman Peterson asked the Sheriff to speak to the request for a community youth center. Sheriff Olson stated he would like to be an active participant on the board for the youth center. David Jansen with the Chanhassen Villager asked if Sheriff Olson had a fear of a youth center becoming a crime haven. Sheriff Olson stated how a youth center can be very beneficial when deputies interact with teens. Justin Miller addressed how city staff is working on initiating a customer service feedback survey for public service. Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 9:25 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson and Elliot Knetsch CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 28, 2006 b. Resolution #2006-21: 2006 Sealcoat Project No. 06-02, Award of Bids. d. Approval of 2006 Liquor License Renewals. e. Resolution #2006-22: 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertising for Bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Lon Hand, 626 Two Below Way, Chaska introduced John Meyer and Peter Plucinak from Chanhassen and Richard Scott, a consultant for Carver-Scott Educational Coop. People that are also involved in the movement but were not present at the meeting include Mike Fahey, Carver County Attorney, State Representative Joe Hoppe, Wayne Borne, a retired executive from Best Buy and currently a consultant in the transportation field, Randy Sampson, a Chanhassen resident and President of Canterbury Downs, and Laurie Forner, a consultant and resident of Carver, Minnesota. Together these people formed a development board of local citizens and business leaders to assist in the planning and development of a youth center that will serve the Chaska area students. He outlined the proposal and associated costs and was asking the City of Chanhassen for their support of the project. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on transportation from the middle school to the youth center, and activities provided during the summer and evenings. Todd Gerhardt suggested setting up a meeting with himself, the Park and City Council Summary – March 20, 2006 2 Rec Director and members of this board and together they formulate suggestions to bring back to the City Council at a future work session. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sergeant Jim Olson reported the sheriff’s office area report, citation list, and the community service officer report for the month of February, noting the change made in the reporting format. Mayor Furlong asked for an explanation of trends emerging with Part I and Part II crimes in the city. Sergeant Olson encouraged residents to keep their cars locked in the driveway, or put them in their garages because of car thefts over the weekend. He also reviewed curfew times for juveniles. Chief Greg Geske reported that the house fire last month was determined to be from an improperly installed wood burning stove and urged all residents to get building permits. He recognized Dale Gregory for 35 years of service in the fire department. Chanhassen is also becoming more involved in the juvenile fire center’s program which is when a juvenile in the city is found to have a fire setting problem through the court system, the fire department provides education. HALLA GREENS, (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT JOHN KOSMAS: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GOLF COURSE. Public Present: Name Address David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Dave Wondra 9590 Foxford Road Judy & Dave Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard Don & Sandy Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina Jeffrey S. 9900 Deerbrook Drive Tom Gertz 10001 Great Plains Boulevard Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and addressed the items that council asked staff to investigate when this item was tabled. Mayor Furlong asked for further clarification on the photometrics plan and amendments to the recommended conditions. The applicant, Erik Olson addressed the compromises that were worked out between city staff and themselves to improve their proposal. Dave Gatto, 9631 Foxford Road speaking for the 37 residents that live north of the golf course, announced that they had met with the Halla Greens representatives and were pleased to announce that they were present to speak on the project in a positive manner about the golf course, except they agree with the Halla Greens people that they do not want to see any parking lot lights. Tom Gertz, 10001 Great Plains Boulevard noted that one issue he still had concern over is the change in extended hours of operation and asked for clarification on the definition of sunrise to sunset and when mowers and heavy machinery would be allowed to operate. Dave Walstad, 10071 Great Plains Boulevard asked for clarification on the lighting plan. Mayor Furlong closed the public comment portion of the meeting. After council discussion the following motion was made. City Council Summary – March 20, 2006 3 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #2003-4 CUP, Planning Case 05-39 for the construction of a golf course with a club house as shown in plans dated Received January 6, 2006, with the following amendment to condition #9 of the existing conditional use permit and adding conditions 10, 11 and 12: 9. No exterior lighting shall be permitted with the exception of safety lights which includes parking lot lights, soffit lights and drive aisle lights, incorporating the second option lighting plan as shown in the staff report. The height of the light pole may not exceed 15 feet. All light fixtures must meet ordinance requirements. All lights with the exception of the light located in the center island of the parking lot and the club house soffit lights, shall be shut off one hour after sunset. 10. The applicant/owner/lessee shall apply pesticides only when needed. Use products that are most effective, target specific, and present the least hazards to people, wildlife, and the environment. 11. A retail pro shop is permitted within the clubhouse. Retail operations shall not occupy more than 20% of one floor. Retail sales are limited to food, beverages, and golf-related items. 12. Hours of maintenance operation shall be limited to Civil Sunrise to Nautical Sunset.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. “Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve an amendment to Site Plan Review 2003-7 SPR – Planning Case 05-39, for the construction of a Club House, a Maintenance Building, a golf ball washing building and a lean-to for a golf course as shown in plans dated received January 6, 2006, with the following added conditions: 1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements for parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 3. The applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for the maintenance building, golf ball washing building, and lean-to that meet the design ordinance requirement. 4. Comply with all conditions of the MnDOT review letter dated November 23, 2005. 5. The temporary 120 square-foot octagon building may remain on the site for a time period not to exceed six month after City Council approval and must be removed within two weeks after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. The building shall be located in the parking lot. City Council Summary – March 20, 2006 4 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with MnDOT and Carver County permits and approval on any grading that takes place along the north and west side of the property. 7. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. 8. All plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 9. The golf ball washing and golf ball dispensing building shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. 10. The maintenance building may not be used for “Halla Nursery” related items nor exceed 2,040 square feet in area. The outdoor storage area shall be fully screened by a board on board wooden fence. The height of the fence shall not exceed 6½ feet. 11. The trash enclosure located west of the maintenance building shall be constructed of materials similar to the club house building.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt announced that Councilman Peterson was appointed to the Transportation Advisory Board for the Metropolitan Council. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2006 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson and Elliot Knetsch PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody. Those here with us this evening and those watching at home. We’re glad that you joined us. At this time I’d like to ask if there are any modifications or changes to the agenda that was distributed with the packet. If not we’ll proceed with the agenda as distributed. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 28, 2006 b. Resolution #2006-21: 2006 Sealcoat Project No. 06-02, Award of Bids. d. Approval of 2006 Liquor License Renewals. e. Resolution #2006-22: 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertising for Bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: We do have some people here this evening with the Community Youth Center, is that correct? Lon Hand: Yes, that’s true. Fahey set this up and he’s got another appointment with…so I’m not Mike and I don’t pretend to be so. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 2 Mayor Furlong: Well welcome. Lon Hand: Lon Hand, 626 Two Below Way in Chaska, Minnesota and thanks for the opportunity to let myself, a few of my other founding members of the community youth center talk and share our idea and concept with you tonight. This idea has been in the works for a lot of years. Has been thought about for a lot of years and in the works since about August. You’ve had packets in front of you I believe that were put together with a lot of information and about halfway through I think we’ll get to some of that detail to support this idea but first of all I wanted to introduce the people that are here with me tonight to share in this idea. John Meyer from Chanhassen who came up with this idea about a youth center many, many years ago. Pete Plucinak, also from Chanhassen. Both those guys and myself have tenth grade boys and that’s how this group started formation as us identifying a need for this, and then also Richard Scott who was a consultant for Carver-Scott Educational Coop, and Richard and I are on that foundation board together so. People that are also involved in this movement that aren’t here tonight would be Mike Fahey, Carver County Attorney and been with us for a long time. Joe Hoppe, who’s a State Representative and very active in this. Wayne Borne who is a retired executive from Best Buy and currently a consultant in the transportation field. Randy Sampson, also a Chanhassen resident. He is President of Canterbury Downs and has youth about the age that we’re looking to support and they’re real excited about this. Laurie Forner who lives in Carver, Minnesota and is also a consultant, so hopefully I didn’t miss anybody in the process, so that’s kind of our founding members if you will and now I’ll get into some of the detail about the idea and what we’re here to ask for. Very recently we were fortunate enough to have the support of the City of Chaska and the support of granting us a building for a dollar a year in rent, supplying us with utilities for that building and now as of a week ago we’re out kind of doing this dog and pony show with other members that we think would be interested and need to be interested in this partnership. In addition to the City of Chaska, we also have a couple other organizations that are very involved. David Jennings from School District 112 is a very critical piece of this picture, as all the youth that we intend to support are in this school district, and also Carver Scott Educational Coop. They are partnering with us. Have supported us thus far financially and providing a consultant to study this need, in addition to providing us insurance moving forward in this project. So we are here to ask for support from the City of Chanhassen and have you guys join our partnership in this venture. Mike Fahey is talking to San Francisco township tonight and we’re on the docket for most of the other cities that are in this community and that serve School District 112. What we’ve done so far is a lot of work and I’ll try to keep this brief. I know the, on the door it says 5 minutes and I know I can’t keep it to 5 minutes so I’ll try to keep it as brief as possible but starting in August we started meeting on a regular weekly basis at my house, trying to talk about ideas. Moving this forward and we’ve been meeting every Sunday since then and have recently got over the hump. I think the biggest hurdle is finding a perfect place for us to house this. We were actually looking at a facility that John identified in Chanhassen when I met Dave Pokorney, the City Administrator for Chaska when in the lobby of the bank one day he said I think I’ve got the perfect facility for you, and I said really Dave. What do you mean? He goes, it’s really close to the middle schools. It’s a mile away and the city is vacating it. It’s the old water treatment plant on Engler and Bavaria. It’s about a 5,000 square foot facility. 20 foot ceilings. Pretty indestructible which we identified as a huge need for the teens, and it’s also very, very close to the middle schools and that’s where 112 has come in to be a great partner, agreeing to bus kids over from the middle school to this youth City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 3 center and make it very easy to do that without having parent involvement. One of the huge needs that exist out there, Arnold Schwarzenegger started an after school alliance about 5 years ago and it’s kind of like the no child left behind, other than his concept is to make sure every child by the year 2010 has an after school activity to do and go to. He initially received $160 million dollars from the J.C. Penny Foundation and is about 5 years into this program. Is very excited about what’s been done so far. The need exists greatly in the middle school ages. All the studies have said, fifth graders, sixth graders, seventh graders, eighth graders are the key ages. From 3:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon are key times. These children, in a lot of cases don’t have a supervised environment to go to after school. Once you get out of the elementary schools, the daycares are pretty much done at that fifth grade level, so by us providing an opportunity and a place for kids to call their own, to go to the youth center. To do their homework. To get on the internet. To play pool. To watch TV. Whatever kids do at that age in a nice, safe supervised environment will be a huge benefit to our communities, and that’s one of our major goals. We have a survey in your packet of information and some fun facts and kind of the sheet looks like this. I believe it might even be on top, but it kind of says the 3 to 6 hours are peak hours for juvenile crime and experimentation with drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and sex. Kids, teens that do not participate in after school programs are nearly 3 times more likely to skip classes and do drugs. And Mike Fahey has a lot of information that he’s researched over the years to support that. Youth who start using alcohol before age 15 are 4 to 5 times more likely to experiment with alcohol dependence in their lifetime. The evidence of need on the bottom half of that sheet, I’ve kind of hit on a lot of that already. There are 1,850 students in that sixth, seventh and eighth grade levels. If we penetrate 5%, that’s 80 to 100 kids that we can help on a regular daily basis. We did a brief survey once the city had indicated that they were willing to move forward with this building concept and allow us to put together a non-profit to make this work, and we received 39 respondents from our market survey, which we thought was pretty good with just one letter that went in kids backpacks. Over 70% of the respondents said they would be interested in enrolling their kid in a quality, affordable school program, and 60% of them already are on our waiting list. We think that’s very impressive and a list of some of the comments are on the back side of that program. The blue folder comes from the After School Alliance, and some of the quotes that we have in the fact sheet come from that information. This is just not a Chaska-Chanhassen school district 112 issue. This is a federal issue and a nationwide issue, as you can tell from Arnold Schwarzenegger to be involved with this After School Alliance $160 million dollars from the J.C. Penny Foundation. Going to a sheet that’s titled, and again I’m sorry for if we just kind of jump around trying to keep this as brief as possible but it says Community Youth Center proposal, and this was some of the information we submitted to the City of Chaska to build our case there. We have on page 2 an outline of what the costs are going to be. The building will take about $125,000 of improvements that are needed. There’s no bathrooms in it at this point. They had 4 large water filtration tanks in that building that have been removed so it’s 5,000 square feet with 20 foot ceilings and an empty shell at this point. We have start up costs of approximately $85,000 and a first year shortfall of approximately $90,000. We think this will be self supporting after year one. Just from the revenues of charging $100 a month for the kids that want to be involved in this program. Currently if you’re a K through 5 after school daycare participant, it’s costing you $200 a month. So we think this is very affordable and a nice benefit for the parents, and we think we’ll have a large enrollment and be self supporting with 100 kids after year one. Also in your packet I’ve enclosed a copy of the information from Dave Pokorney just to kind of support what I’ve told City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 4 you and show you what they’re willing to do. The rent on the building that we were looking at in Chanhassen was about $4,000 a month. Utilities would have been about another $1,000 a month, totaling about $5,000 a month. That’s $60,000 a year and that’s with the City of Chaska has committed to us at this point, and they’re also going to give us an additional $10,000 to work towards the improvements of the building so, we’re very grateful for their encouragement and support and hope that we can get Chanhassen to participate in some way also as the other cities hopefully will jump on board. We’re also going to be doing fund raising from individuals, corporations and Richard Scott from Carver-Scott Coop has a lot of experience in grant writing. There’s a lot of money out there, even for operating expenses to make these things work. There’s a huge need and again we’re hoping that the City of Chanhassen can help support us. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Lon Hand: Any questions or anything? Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Hand? You mentioned transportation. That was one of the questions I had. I think you said that District 112 is going to provide transportation to and from. Lon Hand: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Every afternoon. Lon Hand: They will provide transportation to. I mean the kids will have to be picked up by parents you know from 5:00 to 6:00 or 6:30, whatever that ends up being, but they will provide transportation from the middle schools to the youth center. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And operations is it strictly after school? Do you anticipate summer activities as well? Lon Hand: Okay, good question. This is the main focus. This is where the huge need is and where we think we can help support the community. Cut down on crime. Get kids making the right decisions a little bit more frequently than what they’re doing now. We’ve talked with several different groups, probably the most notably the DECA class at the high school and they would like to use the building a couple of Fridays or Saturday nights a week. Once they, once kids have transportation and their driving license, which my youngest today for the first time turns 16 today. Mayor Furlong: Sheriff ignore that. Lon Hand: But once they have their wheels, they’re probably not as inclined to come to these things. And they also would not, the senior group that was in the DECA said we’d like to be involved. It sounds like a great idea and a great spot but we don’t want to be doing dances or having DJ’s or bands come in if there’s going to be tenth and eleventh graders there. So our plan is to take the evenings, this program would go from the time middle school is out through probably 6:30. And then from 6:30 to 7:00 there would kind of be a half hour for us to get City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 5 regrouped and reorganized from 7:00 until you know curfew so whatever be open for everybody else, and then planned activities on Friday and Saturday nights. So the seniors want the first Friday of the month, it’s their’s to go ahead and plan. If they want to have bingo night. If they want to have a DJ come in. If they want to have a band come in, they can go ahead and have the facility and plan their events. And we do the same thing with the eleventh graders, tenth graders, all the way down through the grade levels, But the key is that we’ll have youth involved in you know an advisory type capacity so we can make sure we’re doing the things that they want to do. We’ll try to keep it as age specific. There’s not going to be any parents that have seventh graders that want their kids to go if there’s going to be seniors there and a band for example. They’re going to, we really want to be age specific. I think that will benefit the kids and the parents and everybody so, that’s kind of our plan. The school district and Carver-Scott has also talked about subleasing the building throughout the day because we’re not really going to have a need for it until approximately 2:30. So if we can gain some rent and offset some of our costs, that’s certainly an option for us too. And the City’s agreed to do that with those two individuals because we’ve already identified that, and if we would come up with somebody else, then we would need to get the city approval to use their building. One thing that Chaska doesn’t have, that Chanhassen does have is a senior center, and the seniors are kind of, were supposedly next on line in Chaska and they’re talking about adding onto the community center but this might be a stop gap for the City of Chaska to use this facility during the day for seniors. So we’ve got a lot of ideas. Birthday parties. All those kind of things where they can rent the facility out. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? If not I guess just some feedback. I think everybody is supportive of quality after school programs, especially for teenagers, and the age group that you’re focusing on so I think that’s great. I think probably the thing to do Mr. Gerhardt, if you’d be willing is to work with the group and understand where the. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I’d suggest setting up a time with myself, probably our Park and Rec Director. See how we can work this into our priorities and get maybe a better grasp of what role we would play in this partnership and then maybe bring it back to City Council on a work session and suggest some potential opportunities that might be open. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Very good. Lon Hand: Thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for your time and your efforts. We appreciate it. Thank you gentlemen. Lon Hand: Yep, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else that would like to address the council this evening during visitor presentations? If not we will move on. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 6 Mayor Furlong: Tonight is our, we will receive our monthly update from our sheriff’s department and Chanhassen Fire Department. With us here this evening I think is Sergeant Jim Olson. Sergeant Olson, are you going to be presenting? Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Thank you and good evening. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Sgt. Jim Olson: Tonight for the City Council I have the sheriff’s office report for the month of February. I have the sheriff’s office citation list, and the community service officer report for the month of February, and also a couple of miscellaneous items that I will go over. First off I would like to just point out that we have the new format for the office area report that we have. For the city. On page 1, which is on the third page of my packet, you’ll see that we have them broken up into Part I and Part II crimes. And these categories come straight from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension here for crime reports that we report into them. Our previous monthly reports just had calls for service on it, whereas this has the actual crimes down, or excuse me the actual crimes that were committed is on page 1. Part I crimes are the more serious crimes, and those include crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and theft. Part II crimes, which is just low dose are crimes such as disturbing the peace, damage to property, traffic alcohol arrests, suspicious activity, crimes like that. Under page 1 of the Part I and Part II crimes we had 70 criminal calls last month, and those consisted of 24 Part I and 46 Part II crimes, and that compares to 78 total criminal calls that we had last year. To break that down a little bit more, we had 19 thefts and 12 theft related calls last month, and this compares to 15 and 8 last year respectively. Damage to property was also down quite a bit last month, and that was down to 5 compared to 15 for the same timeframe last year. On the next page are our non-criminal calls. If we get a call, let’s say to a burglary that we later find out was not a burglary, that would get moved from the burglary category to the second page, non-criminal to whatever type of call that might have been, such as miscellaneous non-criminal or something along that line, whereas last year we still counted it as a burglary. Non-criminal calls, we had 944 last month, which compares to 699 for last year, and the biggest change in this category was traffic stops. We have two more deputies this year compared to last year, one of who was a traffic safety education car. And that was 409 last month compared to 171 for last year. Other notable changes were miscellaneous non-criminal, which was 53 last month compared to 27 last year. Those type of calls are citizen assist, lost and found property calls, civil matters and juvenile disciplinary issues such as a youngster doesn’t want to go to school today so, sometimes we get calls. Councilman Peterson: What about people who don’t want to go to work, do you get that? Sgt. Jim Olson: I can generally deal with them a little bit differently than we do with the juvenile matters. Motorist assist also increased last month. We had 55 for the month of February, which compares to 37 for last year. Any questions at all on the month numbers? Mayor Furlong: Questions for the Sergeant. Sgt. Jim Olson: Or the format at all. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 7 Councilman Peterson: No, I like the new format. Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay, good. Mayor Furlong: I was going to say I think the new format is more informational. It provides more information. I guess the question is, and I don’t know if you have it in the same format historically from a trend standpoint of, it’s hard to look at one or two months on the Part I and Part II, but is there a general trend at all that you see with the Part I and Part II crimes in our area? Historically we’ve been a low crime area and do you see anything that’s changing that at this point? Sgt. Jim Olson: That continues I think as far as being a low crime area. This is a safe community. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Sgt. Jim Olson: That’s important and we take pride in that. Not only at the sheriff’s office but also as a city. We take pride in that so. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Sgt. Jim Olson: Yep. I also want to touch on thefts from vehicles. Over the weekend we had some reports of people going, or somebody going through cars in a couple of our neighborhoods here in the city. What they were doing is they were, they were going through the neighborhoods and going to cars that were parked in driveways and trying the doors. If the doors were unlocked, they would go through them and go inside and rifle through the car looking for valuables. I would encourage residents to lock their cars, even if they’re parked in the driveways. We didn’t have any damage to vehicles at all from windows being broken over the weekend. It was just people, they were checking doors to see if they were unlocked. So again I would encourage residents to lock their cars, even if they’re parked in the driveway. And if they can, bring, park their cars in their garage. I know people have a lot of cars or they have their garages full but if they can, get their cars in the garage. I would also recommend that residents remove valuables from their cars. You know we see laptops and different things that get taken from cars sometimes that are left in the driveway, so you know reduce that as much as you can by removing those valuables out of the car. And I’d also encourage residents to give us a call if they see something suspicious or something that seems out of place in the neighborhood. In January a resident called in a suspicious activity and that phone call helped us catch 2 people that were burglarizing, had burglarized a couple of places and were in the process of burglarizing another one when the call came in, so those phone calls are important to us and we certainly need that continuous support from the community to help us do our job. I also want to talk about curfew which maybe ties into what people going through cars over the weekend. Curfew for the City of Chanhassen, as well as throughout Carver County, juveniles under the age of 12 need to be in by 9:00 Sunday through Thursday, and by 10:00 Friday and Saturday, and of course this is p.m.. Juveniles 12 to 14 years of age need to be in by 10:00 Sunday through Thursday and by 11:00 Friday and Saturday, and then 15 to 17 years old, 11:00 Sunday through Thursday and City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 8 midnight Friday and Saturday. And that’s our curfew, and again if people see kids that are out and about late at night, you know please give us a call. That can certainly save us from taking some reports and causing some people some heartache later on, so. I also wanted to touch on, I talked a bit about Mike Phelps, one of our Chanhassen deputies that was deployed over seas. Mike just left I believe it was yesterday, or the day before and has been deployed to Iraq now. I would like residents and the City to keep Mike, not only Mike but also the rest of the soldiers from Minnesota and their families in their thoughts and prayers as they go overseas to complete their mission. I have one other note tonight also. March 28th, the Governor has proclaimed a proclamation for town hall forums across the state dealing with underage drinking and teen issues that go along with underage drinking. The town hall forum in Carver County will be at the Lakeside Ballroom, which is out in Waconia, and again that’s March 28th at 7:00 p.m. and I would invite everybody who has an interest to attend that forum. They’ll have good information, important information and it’s a chance for everybody to sit down and talk a little bit about a problem so. Anything else for the sheriff’s office? Mayor Furlong: Any questions? I guess just one comment, and with regard to the curfew information for those that were probably trying to write frantically at home, or here in the audience. Mr. Gerhardt, do we have that on our web site or can that be posted? The curfews. Todd Gerhardt: Yep, it’s on the web site. It’s also on our public access channel. We have it as a slide on there so if you’re, everybody’s writing it down, just watch as they go through the different slides on Channel 8 and we are offer the curfew hours on there. And a lot of other helpful information too. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Sgt. Jim Olson: And I occasionally do that, put that in the paper. Mayor Furlong: Great, very good. Thank you sir. Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Have a good evening. Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske, good evening. Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. I guess first of all I’d like to make known I guess our call numbers are down. Continue to be down from last year and could have something to do with the mild winter that we’ve had this year. Along with that mild winter we did have the house fire that my assistant chiefs talked about last council meeting. It was determined to be a wood burning stove and improper installation of that vent system on that wood burning stove so I want to make it a note that this year, because of our mild winter we had less problems with that but in the future if it continues and people do add different kinds of heating systems into their houses, that they make sure that they do need to get a permit for that. One of the reasons for the permit is to see that it is properly installed so. I also want to make note, we did go on mutual aid in Victoria, Chaska, Eden Prairie and Excelsior. The many times that I’ve come up here in the last few years and said that we provided mutual aid to other departments and here’s our chance I guess, we get some payback and were able to call them in and it’s especially during the daytime where we’re City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 9 taxed for fire fighters, it’s a good opportunity that we can get some additional manpower just by calling mutual aid, so we sent out thank you letters to those departments thanking them for the mutual aid. We will be working with the Lions Club for our annual pancake breakfast and we should be advertising that date when we get a concrete date on it. That’s another opportunity for us to meet with the city and stuff and people out there on a better time, much like our open house so we enjoy that. I’d also like to publicly recognize Dale Gregory from our fire department, and I know there was some information in the council packet there and I’d also like to thank the City Manager for a letter recognizing Dale. Dale’s made it a milestone. He’s been on our department for 35 years now. He hasn’t told us he’s retiring yet so we don’t know how long it’s going to continue but Dale’s one of our department members there, battalion chief and he does get up for all the middle of the night calls and has for 35 years and so, being the department’s less than 40 years old, it’s sure neat to have somebody around that long and we will be giving him a plaque at our annual banquet but I did want to recognize him publicly for that. Todd Gerhardt: You’re going to give one to Roseanne too, right? Chief Gregg Geske: Right. Personally we don’t recognize that as part of our banquet, though we do recognize the spouse… Another thing I’d like to bring up, we’ve become more involved in our juvenile fire center’s program, which is a program that’s put on here at Carver County and Chaska has hosted it and we’re starting to get more involved and we’re rewriting it and any time there is a juvenile in the city that is found to have a fire setting problem through the court system, we have to provide a night for them basically to go through and kind of show them what’s involved and the bad things on the fire and such and become more involved in that so. That’s it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for the Chief? No? Very good. Thank you. Appreciate your service. HALLA GREENS, (AKA CHANHASSEN SHORT COURSE), LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT JOHN KOSMAS: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GOLF COURSE. Public Present: Name Address David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Dave Wondra 9590 Foxford Road Judy & Dave Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard Don & Sandy Halla 6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina Jeffrey S. 9900 Deerbrook Drive Tom Gertz 10001 Great Plains Boulevard Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. At our last meeting, one week ago tonight we went through the conditional use. As you recall this application was given a conditional use. The applicant, Mr. Halla wanted to expand the conditional use. The question that came up was, minimum, City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 10 maximum sort of issues so the council gave, based on public input, direction for the staff to work with Mr. Halla to resolve some of those issues. In the cover letter to you was a summary based on the minutes of the staff report with the direction that you wanted us to work with, and Mr. Halla has agreed to those conditions, and what I’d like to do is just go through those summary. ...first regarding the club house, and it’s change in configuration with the original conditional, 40 by 60 to 40 by 66. We’re comfortable with that, the staff is. Outdoor seating area, again that’s a little bit larger. 10 by 60. Square footage wise pretty similar. It was 13.4 by 40. Again that would be the veranda on either side. The maintenance building was one of the big issues. …significant decrease so the original application was 30 by 60. Now we’re down to 34 by 60, and we do have a list of everything that’s going in that building, that has been submitted, and there’s also drawings on the application if you have specific questions about it, otherwise I won’t go through all that, but that has been reduced to minimize that. Again there was never a ball washing machine. That we did agree to, the 10 by, the 10 by 10. And that’s over here. That’s the accessory building, and again there’s a pop machine and a ball washing machine in that building. The shelter building, that was the teaching building, that’s further behind the club house itself. Again that’s a teaching facility. Kind of took a neutral position on that. We didn’t see that as a big issue. It’s pretty far away from the residents. Lighting is still an issue. And that I’ll go through in just a minute. The temporary structure was originally none proposed. Again because they want to get, be able to use it, that, while under construction, be able to, people to use the facility. Get balls. Check in, that sort of thing, that they wanted the opportunity. We did put specific conditions. I have modified those in front of you. The language on the cover memo of your staff report is correct. It didn’t get corrected in the conditions which is, would be condition number 5 regarding that because what we redirected the staff to do, is to make sure that that temporary building didn’t become permanent so there’s so much time specific to the Certificate of Occupancy that temporary building would have to be removed. So that’s reflected in condition number 5. Then the building materials, originally was wood. I showed that last time. The applicant wanted to do the metal. Now they’ve agreed to the vinyl siding, and again that’s this building which has been down sized. And then the house of operation, sunlight to sunset, and there was some ambiguity on that, so we changed that, the condition on that reads civil sunrise to nautical sunset. And I just wanted to add, there was a comment or question regarding, someone asked me last time regarding nuisance ordinance so we wanted to refer to that. In the nuisance ordinance regarding hourly restrictions, there is one that talks about lawn mowing for domestic purposes but there are some exemptions and that’s specifically for snow removal or outdoor recreation, which is in staff’s opinion, this is outdoor recreation so a lawn mowing wouldn’t be restricted to those times, which would be the civil sunrise and nautical sunset, so just to be clear on that interpretation. Then I’ll just take a minute, I think one of the other issues was the lighting and I just wanted to go through that. I know it’s a little bit hard to see but the staff did meet with Sergeant Olson and Beth Hoiseth, the Crime Prevention Specialist just to review kind of the safety issues. Again for clarification on number 9, we did clarify that there will be soffit lighting on the building. Again because…safety issues was if this is the, can you zoom in there a little bit Nann. There will be soffit lighting underneath this building, and to be clear it was our intent that that lighting would be left on. It’s just downcast. It’s not that tall. It shouldn’t, there shouldn’t be a lot of spill over lighting. Then we have both sides of the building, and then there would also be some lighting that would stay on, on the back of the maintenance building, which is over in this area over here. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 11 Mayor Furlong: So just for clarification, what’s the back of the maintenance area, to the south or the north? Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry, this would be facing Pioneer Trail. Mayor Furlong: So you have soffit lights on the north and the south exposure. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: And underneath and just shining down, so they just light down. Kate Aanenson: And there would also be some lighting here. Mayor Furlong: On the west. On the maintenance. Kate Aanenson: To the west. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: And then this side is, from this building line is about 380 feet to the property line, and on the north side, from the side lot, it’s a couple hundred feet. So in looking at the, for someone coming in there early and late, for maybe somebody vacuuming, cleaning, setting up, that would be longer hours. And then for protection again our interest is health, safety and there would be an opportunity that they have safe access to the building. So those lights would stay all the time. So the other issue that was lighting of the parking lot, and again this is, the property, the lights stop at the parking lot. You’ve got another 100, this is about 15 feet wide. You’ve got 120 feet to the property line, but the lights go to zero at the edge of the property line, so what we looked at is that we had the 3 lights in there, only one light would be left on at night and that would provide some light. If you were to shut them off, or use the 4 foot. The 4 foot only gives light right underneath and this whole back side of the parking lot...you’d have no lighting in the back part of the parking lot. And more than likely there’d be employees that probably would park the furthest away so just discussing this again with the people that are more, know more about this issue, that we were a little concerned about that. Just about the safety aspect. Could you put more 4 foot lights? You can see there’s a lot more lights with that, so that was just our issue of concern. It can be lit with 4 foot. There’d be a lot more of them. Again the concern was just, if people are there longer than after, whether it’s workers or someone a half hour past, it could be dark. So there’s two ways to address it, whether it’s the 4 foot or just hitting the one 15 foot one now which was our recommendation based on… Mayor Furlong: So does staff have a recommendation regarding to lighting plans? Kate Aanenson: Yes, it’s in the staff report and that was that the 15 foot, 3 of those, the 15 foot light fixtures, excuse me, and then these 2. And then everything would be dark as you get to that time except for the one…which would provide some brighter light. Councilman Peterson: The rest of them on Option 2. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 12 Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, that would be these. Councilman Peterson: So you’re talking five 15 footers and the rest of them 4 footers. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Peterson: And then on this other one, really the only light you’re getting with a 4 foot is right at that spot. It’s not getting you any residual light to look at the photometrics, so it provides lighting right at that spot but it’s really not serving the purpose of providing that security portion of it, and that was our concern so you’d have to add quite a few more lights. Councilman Peterson: Kate, if this was a residential neighborhood, what’s our standard for street lighting now if it was residential across the street? Kate Aanenson: They’d be taller and they’d be every, at least every 300 feet. And then if they were like, that would be on the street side. If this was a church, which would be permitted in this district, we would certainly have something taller too. Councilman Peterson: Is our standard now 25 or whatever it is? I have no idea. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Do we have 25 in our neighborhoods? Kate Aanenson: The corten steel… Mayor Furlong: The four sided ones. Are those? Kate Aanenson: The street lights? Mayor Furlong: How tall are the street lights? You know the four sided light. Basically those shine out. These are shining down, but those shine out. How tall are they? Todd Gerhardt: I’d say 15 feet. Mayor Furlong: 15 probably? Kate Aanenson: 20, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, okay. Kate Aanenson: And those are typical. I just wanted to point out for you, whatever your recommendation is, just some of the concerns that we wanted to share with you that we do have some dark areas and we just, for people that have cars parked there and have to go to a dark car. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 13 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, anything else? Kate Aanenson: So with that I did give you revised conditions. We are recommending approval with the conditional use and the site plan as modified and then the findings of fact are also in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the sheet that we have here, just for clarification, is that different than what was in the electronic packet? Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And which was it, 5? Kate Aanenson: I believe page 4 and page 5 and then there’s conditions of approval. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. The only difference here on page 4 was condition 5? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And then also on the site plan, we’re…number 9. We just wanted to clarify. Mayor Furlong: I see the 100 square feet. Kate Aanenson: Well that’s the soffit lighting on number 9 on the conditional use. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Just for clarity. Just so everybody understands… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? No? Okay. Is the applicant here? Anything that you’d like to share at this time? Erik Olson: Good evening Mayor, council members. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Erik Olson: My name is Erik Olson. I reside at 9505 Delphinium Lane in Chaska. Sorry, in Chanhassen and also the manager of Halla Greens and I just wanted to basically come up here and thank city staff and the council in particular too just to let us have another week to kind of try to come up with some solutions to some of the problems that we’ve had. We worked really hard to come up with something that you know I think everybody, you know is it ideal for us, everything that we wanted? No. But I think we’ve made some good compromises on both sides and I’d just like to say one thing about the parking lot lights. As I mentioned at the last council meeting, in talking with the neighbors, you know we would prefer not to put in parking lot lights, just to make the neighborhood happy, but I do realize there are a lot of safety issues involved in that so, whatever the council decides on that issue, we’ll be glad to do. Just wanted to say thanks so if there’s any questions, I’ll try to answer them. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 14 Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Olson? No? Very good, thank you for your efforts this last week. I don’t know if there are members of the public. We took public comment last time. I don’t, I mean at most maybe 5 minutes if there’s some comments that need to be made. Really just focusing on any changes that took place between the meetings, so at this time I invite anybody. And that’d be 5 minutes in aggregate, not 20 people for 5 minutes each if we can. So good evening. Dave Gatto: Good evening Mr. Mayor, council. Dave Gatto. I reside at 9631 Foxford Road here in Chanhassen. I’m representing 37 people that live just north of the golf course. We met with the Halla people and had, we’re proud to say that I guess now we’re here to speak on the project in a positive manner about the golf course. We agree with, and so really the only thing that we’re at issue with now with the city, like Mr. Olson just said was that we agree with Halla in that we don’t want any parking lot lights. Halla and I talked for a while, actually Mr. Olson and I talked for a while and talked about some indirect landscape highlights and those kinds of things which I’m sure these folks can do very well since they own a nursery and they own a lot of nice plantings. We’re in favor of those kinds of lights. We’re not in favor of any home spot lights. We feel like the city was in error when they awarded the first conditional use permit. They told the residents and the rest of the city that they’d have safety lights and those lights would be on the buildings. It seems as though they provided for that tonight. Talking about soffit lights and keeping them on all night, so thank you very much for your time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anybody else who would like to provide any comment? Tom Gertz: Mayor, council persons. My name is Tom Gertz. I reside at 10001 Great Plains Boulevard, directly across from Halla Nursery. Adjacent to the golf course on the southern side. This is my third appearance on this issue. I’ll be brief. Most of the issues from the origin of this plan til now have been mitigated. I’m comfortable with most of them. The one issue that I still have some concern over is the change in extended hours of operation. My dwelling is 100 feet or less directly across from the golf course. If I can maybe get a definition of the change in hours and what that actually means in sunrise and sunset and when mowers will be allowed to operate and heavy machinery. That would help some. And my concern is, it really just comes down to quality of life issue. If I had my windows open in the summer and I’m sleeping and if mowers are going at, before sunrise, how does that not impact me. I had mentioned the original ordinance for noise conditions and one for to help avoid those kind of nuisance conditions and if this is an extremely early operation allowed to go on, I don’t know how you get around that. And there’s other homes that are close too so. I have talked with Erik about it and I don’t know if he could come up with a plan at this point but that’s a consideration. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, real quick on the staff’s recommendation now for hours of operation. Kate Aanenson: Our recommendation is to follow the city code, which for nuisance the extension would be outdoor recreational uses, so that’s, there is no limitation on that. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 15 Mayor Furlong: So the limitation will only, for a typical citizen is 7:00 to 9:00 but that would not apply here because of the use of the property, which is. Kate Aanenson: It’s not a domestic use and it would be a recreational type use. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So then lawn mowing and such would be available during the hours of operation? Kate Aanenson: More than likely I would assume, and you can ask the applicant that there be light so you could see, which is probably similar to. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. The current recommendation is a half hour basically before sunrise and a half hour after sunset. Councilman Peterson: I think it was sunrise, at sunrise and then a half hour after sunset. Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: So therefore you could mow that half hour if you wanted. Councilwoman Tjornhom: After sunset. Kate Aanenson: Or before, correct. Mayor Furlong: We need some clarification. Kate Aanenson: Right, if you look at the conditions for the hours, it says sunrise. We did pull out…obviously you’d have the longest days so if you were to look at sunrise in the summer, it be as early as 5:30 in the morning. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I would like to ask the applicant what their plans are. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Olson. Erik Olson: Your questions about what time we’d be starting mowing in the morning? It’s going to vary every morning and you know as Tom mentioned earlier, we have talked it over and basically if it ever does become a problem, my number’s the first number that he’s going to be calling and then Tom, myself and our superintendent will basically sit down and try to work something out where it doesn’t become a quality of life issue for him. But typically to answer the question about starting in the morning, as soon as we can see, when the sun comes up, we’ll be out there mowing the greens. Greens probably take about 5 minutes to mow, and that’s really the only thing that’s mowed every single day. Greens and tee boxes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Now is there a pattern that you can take where you hit the non- residential areas? City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 16 Erik Olson: Yeah, we’ve started basically start on the first hole, because you want to get out in front of the golfers themselves so you go 1, 2, 3, and just follow it in line. Tom’s house is over on number 6. Number 6 green, so if we’re mowing at 6:00, you know you figure maybe we’d be over there around 6:30. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And for how long? You said like 5 minutes? Erik Olson: 5 minutes and then we’re off to the next hole. And I mean it’s not a, it’s actually quieter than a residential lawn mower. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So as long as he does have your number so if it’s at 5:00 in the morning, you’ll be getting a call. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson: Because we know they all have our numbers. Mayor Furlong: Okay, anybody else? Sir. Dave Walstad: Thank you. My name’s Dave Walstad. I’m at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard. Just south of the golf course and I have two questions. Two real quick questions. First of all I’m unclear about the lighting plans that were brought up. There were two options. The second one shows 15 foot lights. Okay. I guess my questions are, with the lights down by the driving range, I’m not exactly sure if we’re talking 15 foot lights in the parking lot and then this plan too involves also putting 15 foot lights in the back side. So we’re talking about combining these two together? Okay. Okay, thank you. Except, I’m sorry. Kate Aanenson: Except the parking lot. Councilman Peterson: Four foot lights everywhere but the 5 in the parking lot. Dave Walstad: Thank you. And the second part was just maybe if you all can just clarify. The sunrisesunset.com which was the web site mentioned. I did actually go on there today and I did print off timeframes and the longest time would be June of course. June sunrise for a majority of the month is between 5:25 a.m. to 5:30 a.m. and sunset is around, a little after 9:00. So again that was one of the questions I had emailed the Mayor. Thank you for responding to me on that. Was asking about whether or not they’d be mowing at that early, and yes I appreciate them working with us and I know Erik had called me and I hadn’t had the opportunity to call him back, but I do appreciate the contact there. And I guess what I’m hearing then is that, since they don’t have a noise ordinance regarding this, that you have to get a complaint issue handled at that time. Kate Aanenson: Well if it’s permitted, it’s more, I want to be clear on this. It’s more a good neighbor sort of thing because the conditional use, there’s only certain things that we can regulate. And unless they in good faith say they want to do that, the ordinance does allow them under a recreational again use to mow anytime they want. That’s, we’re asking them to say, can City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 17 you be a good neighbor and be respectful of. What they said is, what I heard them say is, that’s the first thing they want to do is try to help them out. Nobody wants…but I want to be clear that that’s what the ordinance, what they could do. It’s not a conditional use issue. It’s a question of a variance that we put on to restrict it. That’s kind of, I guess how we kind of got to this. The first applicant was under the conditional use, but underneath the status, if we go back to that minimum and maximum, that first applicant went to the minimum. The next one went to the maximum. Uses change and get added on all the time and as long as you’re exceeding the maximum, they can do that. Now in good faith to work with the neighbors to try to go back to the original condition for the size and…I’m just trying to make this clear that so we’re now getting calls, that what the expectation is and that’s why we’re asking the applicant so everybody has a clear expectation of how it’s going to operate. So what I heard them say is that they’re going to try to minimize that conflict of the noise, but you’re right. In the summer it’s early. That month of June it’s going to be before, so I would hope that they would take that into consideration and be a good neighbor so they’re not getting all those calls from the neighbors. If I wasn’t clear, I don’t know what I could do. Todd Gerhardt: Just to add on to what Kate is saying, We surveyed some of our other operations, driving ranges and it’s sunrise to sunset is how they operate, and you know if they’re going to compete against those people, they have to be on equal playing ground. For us to say you can’t operate from 7:00 to 9:00, that doesn’t put them on an equal playing ground so, that’s how come staff recommended the sunrise to half hour after sunset. Kate Aanenson: And I just want to be clear, so if you call me and say they’re violating something, unless I couldn’t cite them on anything. That’s what we rely on…to say are they violating an ordinance because if that’s what the ordinance says… Dave Walstad: Appreciate everybody’s time here. I know this has been before the council several times. Planning Commission has been very helpful working with the neighbors and just glad to see that everyone here is again concerned about the neighborhood, which is what we wanted in the first place so, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you everybody for your comments. I appreciate that. Any follow up questions at this point for maybe either some of the council members discussion but any follow up questions for staff or for the applicant? No? Why don’t we open it up for council discussion then at this point. Thoughts. Comments on what we saw last week versus this week or. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well okay I’ll jump in. Obviously it’s a vast improvement from what we saw last week. I think Mr. Halla and company did a good job of making concessions and working with the neighbors and the city in trying to make this originally what it was supposed to be, and so that was my most important, or my priority was to make sure that what came before the Planning Commission and City Council 2 years ago, 3 years ago was the same thing that we were looking at today, and I think it’s pretty close to what it is, so I’m satisfied with what’s happened and I think it will be a good asset to your neighborhood once it gets start working. The shelter building, that to me I guess is one of those things I guess I have to have an opinion about it but I just don’t think it’s going to impact necessarily the community or the City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 18 neighborhood and that’s what I’m most concerned about is making sure that the golf course is a good neighbor and the neighbors are good neighbors for the golf course, and so the shelter building isn’t going to really change anyone’s life so, I’m willing to concede to keep it or not to keep it. I just don’t think it’s a big deal. Lighting, I want to keep that to safety. You know we have to take care of the people that are working there, and that are using the golf course but I also realize that you have to be once again courteous to the people that were there first, and so I am all for anything that is going to give the neighborhood the least impact. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson, thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I too, I think the shelter building is fine. I think it’s a reasonable request and certainly isn’t onerous. I think if you can make the environment better out there and safer, let’s certainly do that. All the other things that staff is recommending, I certainly agree with. The lighting I guess is the only one that’s probably up for further consideration. I think that my perspective on that is, I do think we need some increased lighting in the parking lot. If you look at the 15 foot lighting that we have out in different areas of the city, as everybody’s leaving look up in City Center Park. There’s 15 foot lights there that are essentially down lighting that doesn’t wash anything but a greater area than a 4 footer. I don’t find those onerous and certainly you can’t see them for outside of a few feet away from them, so if we did 5 of those, it seems like a reasonable request that staff is making. I would support that. Again in the effort of maintaining safety and reasonableness. I mean we also have to, we light parking lots and that’s what we do as a city for all the right reasons and this certainly shouldn’t be one we shouldn’t light, and I think this lighting is better than building lighting that would have been spot lights shining down. It would have been certainly more than ambient soffit lighting if we went with the original proposal, so I think that’s important to note. So I think the combination of the five 15 footers and multiple 4 footers, landscaping I think will meet the city’s needs and I think meet the neighbors needs once they see what a 15 foot down lighting, which is not a globe lighting. It’s a down lighting wash that just washes a bigger area, so I think that I’m confident that the neighbors will be amenable to that once they see it. So to that end I would support staff’s position of Option 2. I think that addresses all of the issues Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. My thoughts are similar. What a difference a week makes and I commend the applicant and the neighbors for getting together and working together and for staff, for their efforts here these last few days. I think what has transpired here is, last week we were talking about trying as a council to come up with is it reasonable or not what was being requested. I think there was some hesitancy on some of the items but I clearly believe that with the changes that are being presented in the staff report here this evening, with the size of the buildings and their intended use, I think it clearly in my mind meets the level of reasonableness in terms of use for a golf course. Golf course is a permitted in this zoning, just as there are some other uses and the property owner has a right within the zoning laws to operate and so I think there is some flexibility, or we’ve seen it this week and I commend everybody for being a part of that. The specifics on the shelter building, it was listed as optional and as such. I’m fine with that as well. I think Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom agreed. That was never a big issue. I thin it was just part of everything else that was causing a problem so with what’s being proposed here this evening with regard to the maintenance and the ball washing building and the club house, I’m comfortable allowing them to go forward with what they proposed on City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 19 the shelter building and into the location they proposed it down along the driving range. The lights are probably the last option here. One of the options I should say. I think they’re, I would concur with Councilman Peterson. I think the Option 2, which includes the five 15 foot down lit, or shielded lights provide some balance in terms of safety and security on the property while minimizing the effect on the neighboring properties. If this was a residential development that was going in here, we wouldn’t even be talking about street lights. They’d be there. They’d go in and those would be, from a design of a street light, well very similar to what exists right now at Pioneer Trail and Foxford Road. There are 2 street lights right there that shine out, and there’s a pretty good glow right there and along Foxford there are periodically spread out street lights. Why are they there? They’re there for safety and security and that’s what staff is recommending here and I think the type of lighting here is actually going to be less intrusive, to Councilman Peterson’s point. If these were 25 foot standards, that would be different. I think that would be much more noticeable than the 15, and so I am comfortable. I think the second option with the five 15 and then everything else 4 feet provides a good balance to try to provide for safety and security of the property while minimizing the impact of the neighbors. With regard to hours of operations, I think there, that was raised and something that we’ve been discussing. Because this is a permitted use in the zoning area, a golf course, they need to cut the grass. That’s just something that you do at a golf course. That’s part of the normal necessary factor of running the golf course. I think what we talked about last week, when I think normal use in terms of the golfer on a golf course, starting out a half hour before sunrise is not an unreasonable time. You can see. I think Councilman Peterson spoke about the, it’s a half hour before, half hour after is a useable term. It’s used during hunting regulations in our state. It’s used for piloting aircraft. I think here the difference is, it’s not an issue of the golfers being able to see. It’s an issue of the noise that’s emanating from the course, and that’s where I would be a proponent of following staff’s recommendation to start hours of operation at sunrise. If the, I think how are we defining it here? I think it’s the civic, not nautical sunrise but actual sunrise itself, and allowing then the operations to continue the half hour after civic or to nautical sunset. I think that’s a fair compromise, recognizing that during June, and the longest days, people are going to be out there and they’re going to be operations earlier in the day than they will be in the fall but I think that’s the nature of a golf course. And with the few nice months that we have, people like to get out and golf and there will be people that are out there early golfing. Getting in 9 holes before they go to work, and that’s part of recreation opportunities that an operation like this will present as well so, while I understand there may be some inconvenience, I think by not starting as early as other courses do, we can try to minimize that and will still provide in a reasonable expectation for the property owner and move forward, so I’m comfortable with staff’s recommendations throughout. It sounds like my fellow council members here this evening are as well, and I think for reasons previously stated with regard to lighting, we’ve made some good progress there but staying with the Option 2 which includes at least five of the 15 foot standards with the, with one of them remaining lit in the central parking lot for safety and security, I think that’s a very, very good compromise. So that’s what I would support this evening. Any other thoughts or comments on this? Is there a motion then? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d move that the City Council approve the conditional use permit with conditions 9 through 12. In addition the Site Plan review, conditions 1 through 11 with the findings of facts as attached to the staff report. One question Kate. Do we need to put City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 20 in there about the shelter anywhere or not? I can’t, is that something that we should put in as an addition? Kate Aanenson: It’s on the site plan… As shown on, your condition adopting the site plan. Councilman Peterson: Okay, that’s fine. Motion stands. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Question on the motion then. Kate, with regard to the issue of the lighting, since there were two options in the staff report. How does the motion just made, does that provide for what staff’s recommendation was in terms of the second option on the lighting schematic? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think you should quantify the second…of the five driving and parking lot lighting. The five 15 feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay, because the conditional use permit number 9 here speaks to height of light pole may not exceed 15. Kate Aanenson: So that would be the five specific. Two in the driving, 3 in the lot. Mayor Furlong: Can we somehow tie it back to staff’s report under. Kate Aanenson: Because you also want to clarify that they all be off, except for the one in the middle. Mayor Furlong: Which would be the second so, incorporating staff’s recommendation for the second option? Is that acceptable Councilman Peterson? Councilman Peterson: So noted, yeah. Mayor Furlong: And Councilwoman Tjornhom, you’re comfortable with that as well? Just so we’re clear on what’s there. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? Points of clarification? If not we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #2003-4 CUP, Planning Case 05-39 for the construction of a golf course with a club house as shown in plans dated Received January 6, 2006, with the following amendment to condition #9 of the existing conditional use permit and adding conditions 10, 11 and 12: 9. No exterior lighting shall be permitted with the exception of safety lights which includes parking lot lights, soffit lights and drive aisle lights, incorporating the second option City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 21 lighting plan as shown in the staff report. The height of the light pole may not exceed 15 feet. All light fixtures must meet ordinance requirements. All lights with the exception of the light located in the center island of the parking lot and the club house soffit lights, shall be shut off one hour after sunset. 10. The applicant/owner/lessee shall apply pesticides only when needed. Use products that are most effective, target specific, and present the least hazards to people, wildlife, and the environment. 11. A retail pro shop is permitted within the clubhouse. Retail operations shall not occupy more than 20% of one floor. Retail sales are limited to food, beverages, and golf-related items. 12. Hours of maintenance operation shall be limited to Civil Sunrise to Nautical Sunset.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. “Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve an amendment to Site Plan Review 2003-7 SPR – Planning Case 05-39, for the construction of a Club House, a Maintenance Building, a golf ball washing building and a lean-to for a golf course as shown in plans dated received January 6, 2006, with the following added conditions: 1. Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements for parking lot trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berming or increased landscaping. 3. The applicant must submit detailed architectural plans for the maintenance building, golf ball washing building, and lean-to that meet the design ordinance requirement. 4. Comply with all conditions of the MnDOT review letter dated November 23, 2005. 5. The temporary 120 square-foot octagon building may remain on the site for a time period not to exceed six month after City Council approval and must be removed within two weeks after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. The building shall be located in the parking lot. 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with MnDOT and Carver County permits and approval on any grading that takes place along the north and west side of the property. 7. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 22 8. All plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 9. The golf ball washing and golf ball dispensing building shall not exceed 100 square feet in area. 10. The maintenance building may not be used for “Halla Nursery” related items nor exceed 2,040 square feet in area. The outdoor storage area shall be fully screened by a board on board wooden fence. The height of the fence shall not exceed 6½ feet. 11. The trash enclosure located west of the maintenance building shall be constructed of materials similar to the club house building.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate all your efforts and thoughts and input. Thank you. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Well I’ve got a couple here. Councilmember Craig Peterson this past week was appointed to the Transportation Advisory Board. That is a transportation board that serves Met Council and awards grants to transit and MnDot and other government agencies for roads, bridges and a variety of transportation needs. So he should be congratulated on being on that board. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Congratulations. Councilman Peterson: My ascension to power. Todd Gerhardt: I already hit him up earlier tonight on the 41 pedestrian underpass, which was an application last year so, hope he doesn’t forget about us here. And his works have already been felt over there. Southwest Metro Transit was awarded a $5.5 million grant this past week also by the Transportation Advisory Board for a multi level parking ramp that will be located somewhere behind the Chanhassen Dinner Theater and serve as our downtown parking ramp for commuters to various locations. Probably most of them downtown Minneapolis. And again that was with Southwest Metro Transit, so pretty excited about that and future activities that might occur in that area when you put an asset like that in that location, that definitely is a draw for both retail and other type uses so, that’s going to help as we work on redeveloping the back side of the Dinner Theater. Len Simich and Craig and I think Commissioner Workman played a vital role in helping us to get funded for that parking ramp so our thanks go out to everybody. Other than that, that’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay. City Council Meeting – March 20, 2006 23 Councilman Peterson: Where’s the Golden Chalice Restaurant going into? Kate Aanenson: Across the street… Councilman Peterson: Oh really. What is it? Kate Aanenson: I think it’s a health food restaurant. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions or thoughts? Mr. Gerhardt. Timing on the funding of that parking ramp is a couple years out we’re anticipating right? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. We’re probably looking at funds being available October of 2008. Federal funding coming from their 2009 and 10 allocation. Mayor Furlong: But there may be some opportunity to accelerate too? Councilman Peterson: Well we’ve got funding available immediately for regarding and putting blacktop in, so that will be the first phase and then the construction will begin in ’07-08. Mayor Furlong: Well I understand that the park and ride there is heavily used. Bursting at the seams would be perhaps a way to describe it. Councilman Peterson: We’ll leave it at that. Yes, it is. This will help significantly. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Very good, congratulations. Todd Gerhardt: We would never go outside of our easements. Councilman Peterson: Never. Mayor Furlong: Any other comments or questions for Mr. Gerhardt? No? If not, any discussion on the correspondence packet? No? Seeing none, we will be continuing our work session immediately following the council meeting. If there’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MARCH 21, 2006 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and outlined the agenda and rules of procedure for the meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Mark Undestad and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke and Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager REVIEW OF SAND COMPANIES TIF PLANS TO ENSURE CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Justin Miller presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification of the math and the Planning Commission’s role in this request. Resolution #2006-01: McDonald moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution that you just read, resolution of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for the downtown Chanhassen redevelopment project area and a tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE RILEY/RICE MARSH LAKE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FIVE (5) STORM WATER PONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN THE RICE MARSH LAKE AND LAKE RILEY WATERSHEDS, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-06, RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Ken & Liz Nystrom 8501 Tigua Lane Bob Myers 8131 Dakota Lane Kathy Slavics 8140 Dakota Lane Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 2 Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked staff to explain how expanding these ponds will help clean up the water in Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley, and how the wetland banking system works. Commissioner McDonald asked if this project would help with water quantity issues. Commissioner Undestad asked if a permit is needed for maintenance and cleaning of storm water ponds. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification on the design and maintenance of the ponds. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Kathy Slavics whose house backs up to St. Hubert’s and Rice Marsh Lake, expressed concern with loss of noise buffering from 212. Bob Myers, 8131 Dakota Lane stated the corner of his lot was being impacted by the expansion of the pond, and asked for clarification on the timing for construction and funding sources. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion and comments, the following motion was made. Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #06-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1. 2. The applicant shall notify nearby property owners of the proposed project at least two weeks prior to beginning work. The notice shall, at a minimum, provide a summary of the purpose of the project, the timeline for project completion, and contact information for someone with RPBCWD who is able to provide more information about the project. It is recommended that the applicant work with the City to identify property owners receiving notice and to provide a link to a project website from the City’s website. 3. The applicant shall restore any disturbed areas and restore or replace any damage to infrastructure on City property. 4. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded within the 7, 14, 21 day time frames depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow areas shall receive temporary protection within 24 hours of connection to surface waters. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow area and for slopes of 3:1. All remaining areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion. 6. The applicant shall provide information regarding the fate of the excavated/excess material, as well as the stabilization and/or containment of the material. 7. Temporary energy dissipation shall be installed at existing flared end sections to the bottom of the basin at the end of each day to protect against erosion. This could include temporary plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric secured to the soil. 8. All existing outlets/proposed outlet structures shall be temporary riser structures until the ponds and adjacent areas are stable. Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 3 9. Street sweeping and scraping shall be needed daily (potentially more often) during active haul times. A dedicated site pickup sweeper may be needed. 10. The applicant shall provide details as to how dewatering will be accomplished for the basins in this project. 11. The applicant shall have a flocculent available on the project to facilitate sediment removal from sediment laden water. 12. Energy dissipation shall be provided at all discharge points from dewatering pumps. Waters receiving dewatering discharges should be large enough to handle the volume and velocity of the water. 13. 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, impacts below the OHW of Rice Marsh Lake), Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. All appropriate permissions and easements must be obtained prior to the undertaking of any construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTHWEST OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 312 (1500 PIONEER TRAIL), PLANNING CASE NO. 05-24, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes Chris Moehrl Westwood Professional Services Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Bruce Jeurissen Belle Plain Nancy Worm Belle Plain Jim Benshoof Wenck Associates Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 4 Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Kate Aanenson reviewed the findings of the AUAR and Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McDonald asked how in the overall AUAR area, and at one time the commission was looking at more commercial development for tax purposes, and what he’s seeing now it looks like this area is becoming pretty much residential, how that impacts the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Undestad asked for clarification on the additional right-of- way being requested by MnDot for wetland mitigation. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the rezoning, and the location of the access road to the north. Commissioner McDonald asked for further clarification on where the diversity of housing is shown. The applicant was represented by Shawn Siders with Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company. He introduced his team including Kevin Clark, Vice President of Land Development and Chris Moehrl, project engineer with Westwood Professional Services. Due to technical problems, the power point presentation was not available. Mr. Siders presented their project, showing diversity in site layout, housing styles, colors and building materials. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on erosion control measures during construction of the trail along Bluff Creek and tree loss. Commissioners McDonald and Larson asked for further clarification on how this development will offer diversity from Liberty on Bluff Creek. Chairman Sacchet asked the applicant to explain the changes made in the height of the retaining walls. He then opened the public hearing. Jim Benshoof, traffic engineer with the firm of Wenck and Associates and hired by Jeff Fox and Rick Dorsey on their behalf to begin planning efforts for their property, coordinate with city staff, and coordinate with developers of other nearby properties in terms of the overall planning for this area. He presented options for road configurations from the Liberty at Creekside development through the Fox and Dorsey properties. Jeff Fox, representing the Fox Family parcel which abuts the Jeurissen property, asked for consideration of the road alignment which connects to his properties. Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard showed a picture of the home on their property valued at 2 ½ to 3 million dollars which will probably be lost due to the road alignment and the impact the road will have on development of their property. The two major issues for him are there has to be a definitive location on Lyman determined to know where the north collector’s going to go and how it’s going to interact with the east/west collector road. Also looking at development from the standpoint of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Undestad asked Mr. Dorsey to explain his color coded map which shows the extent of the tree preservation area. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion and comments regarding diversity in design, the following motions were made. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Rezoning of the property located within the Liberty at Creekside development with the exception of Outlot A and the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone, from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD - R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Liberty at Creekside, plans prepared by Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 5 Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on Highway 312. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for residential homes. 2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site for final plat approval. 3. The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR. 4. The developer shall designate Common Lots 13 and 18 as Outlots. 5. The developer shall establish a separate outlot(s) for the land within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. 6. Dedication of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be established over said outlot(s). 7. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be complete within one year of the authorized fill on Liberty on Bluff Creek. 8. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek. 9. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 10. Due to a secondary access through the MnDOT right-of-way (ROW) to the north in the northeast portion of the property, the applicant will be responsible for creating or securing sufficient wetland mitigation for MnDOT that will meet all conditions imposed on MnDOT and will be responsible for any and all fees associated with the redesign of the wetland mitigation areas in MnDOT ROW. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the wetland mitigation plan has been received and approved by the City and MnDOT. 11. The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 6 12. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. No alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. 13. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the farmed area south of Bluff Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention shall be paid to areas with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). 14. Alterations appear to be proposed within a mapped FEMA unnumbered A Zone (100-year floodplain). In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within the floodplain. 15. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. 16. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the proposed pond. The EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included the plan. 17. The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all erosion controls and restoration practices. 18. 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. 19. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 20. The applicant shall provide details for curbside inlet control. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation. Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 7 21. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls may include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy. 22. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion berms or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet is needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. A detail for the temporary pond outlet shall be included in the plans. Additional temporary sediment basins may be needed or an alternate location may be needed depending upon site conditions during rough grading. 23. The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be turned to the southeast to align with the creek. 24. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is needed and should be shown on the plan. 25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $266,850. 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 28. Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both wetland mitigation areas. 29. A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area. This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either side of the access lane. After construction, the access lane shall be restored according to the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’. 30. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 31. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 8 32. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated 9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 33. The applicant shall submit a full sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with final plat submittal. 34. A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas. 35. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 36. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and constructed to meet all City specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction. 37. The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection to the Bluff Creek trail through private street B. 38. The developer must coordinate the location and elevation of the western street connection with the Pioneer Pass (Peterson Property) and Degler property developments to the west and northwest. 39. The height and length of retaining walls must be reduced to the maximum extent possible. 40. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan. 41. A building permit is required for any retaining walls four feet high or taller. These walls must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 42. The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the grading plan. 43. Typical sections for each housing style must be shown on the final grading plan. 44. The final grading plan must be 50 scale so that staff can complete a full review of the proposed grading. 45. The developer must verify the invert elevation of the sanitary sewer connection that will be constructed with the 2005 MUSA Improvement Project. 46. The development may not proceed until the Phase II 2005 MUSA utility extension project has been awarded. Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 9 47. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges and the SAC charge at the time of building permit. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575.00/unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078.00/unit for watermain. The SAC charge is $1,625.00/unit. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 48. The northern access (currently shown to the Fox property) must be shifted to the east to the MNDOT right-of-way parcel. 49. The Arterial Collector Fee shall be paid with the final plat. The 2006 fee is $2,400/developable acre. 50. The final plans must show the new orientation for Lots 13 and 14, Block 2. 51. The site plan and final grading plan must identify the proposed 10-foot wide bituminous trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 146 townhouses, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site for final plat approval. 3. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 5. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4. 7. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 10 8. Fire apparatus access road and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 9. 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. 10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the private streets. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of sign. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. 12. Staff will work with the developer on materials, colors and diversity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit for alterations within the flood plain and development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated 9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 2. The applicant shall submit a full-sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with final plat submittal. 3. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project. 4. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek. 5. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – March 21, 2006 11 PIONEER PASS: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/ INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES); REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, RLM (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES); PRELIMINARY PLAT (PIONEER PASS) CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLCI STREETS (APPROXIMATELY 73 ACRES); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PRIMARY ZONE; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL) AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-09, APPLICANT D.R. HORTON. McDonald moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Pioneer Pass to the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 21, 2006 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 2006 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and outlined the agenda and rules of procedure for the meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Larson, Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Mark Undestad and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke and Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager REVIEW OF SAND COMPANIES TIF PLANS TO ENSURE CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Miller: Thank you Mr. Chair, commissioners. Before you tonight is the draft tax increment financing plan for the proposed TIF District #9, which is being developed to support the Gateway Place affordable housing project. Just to refresh you memory we have a map here. This would be the new Highway 212. Relocated Highway 101. So this is the project, the Gateway Place project right there. Last year the developer, which is the Sand Companies, they were awarded tax credits through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. It’s a competitive process. Part of their application indicated that the City, with our support, was willing to provide support for their project through the use of tax increment financing. Now state law requires that any new TIF plan be approved by the Planning Commission of the respective municipality to ensure that it complies with the city’s comprehensive plan. Now the Planning Commission already approved this preliminary plat and site plan on February, 2006 and in doing so staff believes already affirmed that the proposal is in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan and I listed quite a few of the findings of fact in the staff report that we provided to you tonight. Just a brief little explanation of what tax increment financing is, in case those watching at home don’t exactly understand. If you have a bear piece of land, say it’s paying right now $100 in taxes. Once a development is built, in this case it will be a 48 unit apartment building. Say it ends up paying $1,000 in taxes. The city in a TIF district can capture the increment, the $1,000 minus the $100. That’s $900 and instead of dispersing that to the city, the county and a school district, the city can collect it all and use it to facilitate development that might not occur otherwise. In this case the purpose of collecting the money will be to facilitate affordable housing. It will be provided to the developer in the amount not to exceed $300,000 to help create 47 of the 48 units to be affordable for people at 60% or less of the median income in the Twin Cities. The EDA and the City Council will be hearing these and having a public hearing on these items at their April 10th meeting, but what we’re looking for tonight is for the Planning Commission to pass a resolution which is attached in your packet stating that the proposed TIF plan is in conformance with the City of Chanhassen’s comprehensive plan. And with that I will be happy to answer any questions. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 2 Sacchet: Thank you Justin. Questions. No questions here? No? No questions there? One thing that I want to know a little more about is the math with the numbers. You mentioned $300,000 would be provided, kind of to help basically putting those apartments in place. Miller: Right. Sacchet: And then that would be made up through the tax element over how many years? Miller: It will be a 7, well we’re proposing to provide tax increment financing for 7 years. For 5 years the City will provide 90% of the increment that’s produced by this property back to the developer. For the 2 years after that, the City will provide 65%, so a total of 7 years increment will be provided. Sacchet: So the benefit to the developer is over those 7 years? It’s not like they get something up front. Miller: No. It will be a pay as you go, which means they have to pay the taxes and as they pay those, then it will be reimbursed to the developer. Sacchet: Okay, okay. I didn’t see the 300 in there. I mean I saw like some other numbers. Miller: Within the TIF plan, when you create a housing district it can be created for a maximum of 25 years, and so in doing these we try to create as much flexibility as possible. It is our intention right now, at the end of 7 years to decertify or end the TIF district. However, at the end of 7 years if there’s another use that we want to provide money somewhere for affordable housing in the city, we can keep this TIF district open and that’s probably the number that you saw. I think over the life of the district it’s anticipated to create maybe $1.2 million dollars. Sacchet: Okay, so the idea, but the idea is that it’s kept to 300 in this case? Miller: That’s right. That’s our goal. Sacchet: But this would be a foundation that the same instrument could be used beyond that with potentially another. Miller: That’s right. Right, we would need to enter into a contract with another company, another developer before the end of the 7 years to try to find a use for the increment. Sacchet: Now this is kind of unusual for the Planning Commission to actually deal with more financial issue and so my understanding of our context is actually to look at this in a view of the comprehensive plan. Miller: That’s right. The actual numbers and the financial part is really the role of the EDA and the City Council. The role of the Planning Commission tonight is to ensure that the Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 3 improvements being made through the tax increment financing support is in conformance with the City’s comprehensive plan. Sacchet: So our angle is to make sure it fits in with the overall planning. Miller: Exactly. Sacchet: And I think we’ve already decided that as such when we approved that type of a development to go into that place, correct? Miller: Right. An example would be say a developer wanted to put in apartments or some sort of development along current 212. That doesn’t have sewer and water and we, staff was proposing to provide TIF assistance to do that. Clearly that would not be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and that would be the role of the Planning Commission to say that. Sacchet: Okay. Any other comments? Questions. Alright, thank you Justin. Miller: Thank you. Sacchet: So there is a recommendation here that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution finding that a modification of the redevelopment plan for the downtown Chanhassen redevelopment project area and the tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 conform to the general plans for development and redevelopment of the city. Must have been drafted by an attorney. Do we need to make a motion and vote on that? Kate Aanenson: That’d be correct. Sacchet: So anybody want to make a motion here please? McDonald: I’ll make the motion that we adopt the attached resolution that you just read, resolution of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for the downtown Chanhassen redevelopment project area and a tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Larson: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Resolution #2006-01: McDonald moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution that you just read, resolution of the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for the downtown Chanhassen redevelopment project area and a tax increment financing plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 9 conform to the general plans for the development Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 4 and redevelopment of the city. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE RILEY/RICE MARSH LAKE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FIVE (5) STORM WATER PONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN THE RICE MARSH LAKE AND LAKE RILEY WATERSHEDS, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-06, RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address Ken & Liz Nystrom 8501 Tigua Lane Bob Myers 8131 Dakota Lane Kathy Slavics 8140 Dakota Lane Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Lori. Questions, Dan. Keefe: I’ve got a couple questions. First one, can you list, how does expanding, it looks like most of these ponds are going to be expanded and enlarged, right so how does that then translate to clearer water in Rice Marsh Lake? Are we going deeper? Maybe you can just show me, give me an example. Runoff goes in. Sand gets trapped wherever then it goes out. Real simple. Haak: Yeah, that’s exactly right. I don’t have to say much more than that. Yeah, the primary functions of storm water ponds is to trap the sediment, the big particles so not only trash but also the sand from road salt applications and things like that. The other is for nutrient removal, and so when you have, especially when you have a larger pond with a little bit more residents time, the very find particles can settle out and in fact vegetation has a big part to play in removing some of those nutrients before the water goes on to the next part in the system, whether it’s Rice Marsh Lake or Lake Riley. So really by getting a big pond, what we’re doing is consolidating… The original proposal for, that the watershed district brought forth included a lot of storm water ponds. Actually some in rear yards off of places like Marsh Drive and Lake Drive, off of commercial pieces and things like that, and what they were able to do by having a little bit more wetland impact, they were able to leverage a bigger area so for maintenance purposes and just construction feasibility purposes, they could consolidate those. In addition there’s some evidence that regional ponding is more effective than water quality treatment so, that’s kind of. Keefe: Where does all the fill go? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 5 Haak: That is up to the watershed district because they are the project proposers so, that is something that we conditioned. It’s recommended as a condition by staff is that they cooperate with staff and let us know where that material is going. Keefe: Does it stay in the city here? Haak: Not necessarily. In some cases it does and in some cases it doesn’t. It depends on the contractor they end up getting and where they have a home for that material. Keefe: Okay. And then just help me understand the wetland bank piece. If we’re creating larger wetlands, are we creating larger wetlands or are we not creating? Haak: Actually these are wetland impacts because we’re excavating wetland to turn it into storm water ponds. So the wetland banking. Keefe: Okay. Not one, they aren’t the same? Haak: No, no. No, they have different regulatory standing so yeah. Keefe: Alright, so because we’re impacting wetlands and turning them into storm water ponds, we essentially are reducing the amount of wetland right? Haak: Correct. And the required mitigation rate for wetland impacts is 2 to 1, so the watershed district is actually buying over 6 acres of credit in order to mitigate for this project, and those credits are already constructed. They’re already in the state wetland bank so we’re actually getting 2 to 1. Unfortunately it’s not in Chanhassen, but we are getting some really good water quality improvements in the opinion of staff. Keefe: Okay, great. Sacchet: Any other questions? Jerry. McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions. These retaining ponds are mainly to clear up the water going into Lake Riley, is that correct? Haak: Well Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley, correct yes. McDonald: And it’s storm water that actually fills the ponds. Haak: Correct. McDonald: Now last year I know we had some problems with water over in this area as far as you know some flooding and everything. Is this going to help those types of situations? Haak: Well is there one specific pond that you’re thinking of or? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 6 McDonald: No. In the area over around Lake Drive I believe, in that development when we had the big storm, there were some issues with water. Haak: Boy, I’m not. McDonald: Okay, I could be wrong but, will this begin to help some of those problems as far as keeping flooding down to a minimum? Haak: Well the great thing about two of these ponds is that they’re adjacent to large water bodies that have a lot of holding capacity, so in keeping these ponds down lower in the watershed, we’re able to storm much more water and yes, in excavating these there will be some water quantity benefit, but the primary benefit is going to be water quality in most cases. McDonald: Okay. And in relation to last year’s storm, considered a 100 year event, how will these help the city as far as managing water during a storm of that kind of capacity and everything? Haak: Sure. The only one of these basins that I’m aware of that caused problems, or experienced any sort of problem in those two storms of last year is the Market Boulevard pond. There was some water that ran across Market Boulevard. Currently it runs under Market in most scenarios, toward the east. To the pond that’s just right, just south of Applebee’s and Walgreen’s there, and in several cases, actually I think in both of those storms there was water in the street. Now that’s again, that’s the only one, and between Alyson and I we received a good number of calls on storm water and that’s the only one that I’m aware of. In this case, I’m not sure that in a storm that large that this will help in a significant fashion, but there will be some benefit from that, from those excavations. Alyson, can you speak to that or are you aware of any additional problems? Fauske: The only other problem that I’m aware of was on south of Lake Drive East just off Cheyenne Avenue. That little eyebrow cul-de-sac area. There was a gentleman who we did go out and talk to. Basically the issue is, is his garage is lower than the street in the low point of the road drains towards the park back there and went through his back yard and so he had water going down his driveway. But I mean as far as speaking to these projects and the ability to help that situation, that’s why we don’t allow garages lower than the street anymore. Just because of situations like that where we have those huge events that our storm sewers aren’t designed to handle that. McDonald: Okay. But will this improve our capability you know just any amount or? Fauske: Yes. McDonald: I have no further questions. Sacchet: Any questions? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 7 Undestad: One quick one. The storm ponds, you know the other storm ponds throughout the city, do you have to come up here when you’re going to start cleaning out, just for the maintenance and cleaning of those or just when you alter the wetland? Haak: Yes. There, that’s a really good question and a lot of people, even in my position struggle with that. There are generally two kinds of storm water ponds in the city. There are the ones that were constructed in upland areas, in areas that were not wetlands. Have never been wetlands and only start to take on wetland characteristics when you excavate them. Those you basically can go in whenever you need to either make those bigger, as long as you’re not impacting any additional wetlands, or just clean out the sediment. For those that were constructed, like these were, at least some of these were, actually all of these were constructed in wetlands already, and those when you make them bigger or you know extend the wetland impact, then you need to come and get all the appropriate approvals and get the technical folks from all the agencies to sign off on that as well so, it’s just that second group that would need planning commission and city council approval. Undestad: Okay. Sacchet: Question Debbie? Larson: Well yeah. Just getting back to the pond that we have dug out, and I think we probably addressed this at another meeting but I’ll bring it up again. How often do we go in and do maintenance on these ponds, especially ones within the city? And then I was noticing the one by Market Street, the smaller portion where the little, what do you call it, a bridge or, it seems like it’s deeper on that end. So that’s why you, but it will fill up at some point and that’s when you have to go and dig it out again. Haak: That’s correct. Larson: So when you get to that point is there another impact? Haak: No, the Wetland Conservation Act and the city allow for the maintenance…ponds for sediment removal because actually those affect the function and the value of that wetland. If you have let’s say a very nice wetland and for some reason you’ve got a pipe going there that leads from a major road, if you’ve got a lot of sand and things like that that are spread on that road, they run off into that wetland. It’s the activity of removing that deposited sediment from that wetland is exempt from the rules. So that’s something that is anticipated by that Act. With regards to the city, we have about 400 storm water ponds in the city and we’ve recently completed an inventory of those and actually the State of Minnesota and the Environmental Protection Agency have recently, in 2003 was when the state law was, or rule was passed, that. Actually it wasn’t a rule. It was a permit that was issued and that was done in 2003 that requires the inspection of all storm water infrastructure pipes and catch basins and storm water ponds on a 5 year basis. So we’ll have to do, at least inspect 20% of our storm water ponds every year from now on. Now that we know where they are. Larson: So that’s new? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 8 Haak: Exactly, yes. And actually the Planning Commission will be seeing our Surface Water Management Plan at the April 4th meeting. And actually holding a public hearing on that, and it’s part of that and I’ll go into greater detail then, but typically also to get to another question you asked was, the maintenance cycle for a storm water pond is anywhere from 10 to 20 years, depending on how much primarily again it’s sand. That pond receives. Larson: Based on the need mainly. Haak: Exactly. Larson: Alright, thanks. Sacchet: Yes Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: I hate to keep asking questions about the water and the capacity but you said a couple things I just want to get clear. The purpose of these ponds is to take care of the water quality within Rice Lake and Riley Lake. It is not to mitigate flooding in those types of issues, so the driver for maintenance is the purpose of clearing up water so, we’re not looking to keep a certain depth in there for capacity, for flood run off or any of those things? Haak: Well there is, and that gets into a little bit of the engineering and the storm water facilities and I’m not the engineer here so Alyson will jump in and correct me if I’m going astray, but generally in storm water pond designs the area below the normal water level is the water quality volume, and that’s what we’re increasing, or the watershed district is proposing to increase in this project. The area above that normal water level is the flood control volume, so really you can only gain significant strives by raising that level which would be the 100 year level of that pond. So you get the, it’s called dead storage below the normal level and you get the live storage, or the flood storage above that normal water level. And because in this case we’re excavating out below the normal water level, that’s where we’re getting our water quality benefit, because that water is still, and it stays in the pond for longer. McDonald: Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Haak: Does that make more sense? McDonald: Yep. Sacchet: Just one quick question Lori. You mentioned a concern with Lake Riley water quality. Can you say a little more specifics about that. What type of issues did we encounter that this would be a good counter measure for. Haak: Sure. Primarily the issue that we’ve seen are you know the typical lake issues. The high phosphorous levels. The high chlorophyll levels, which results or you know which is an indicator of increased algae or duck weed, things like that in the pond. Or in the lake, I’m sorry. And additionally it would be that decreased visibility or the secchi depth. So if you’re out Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 9 boating on Lake Riley and happen to go to Lotus Lake, Lotus Lake may be a little bit more clear at certain times of the year and Lake Riley might get a little bit greener. A little bit more green a little faster. Those types of things. So those are all the primary indicators of that water quality and it just compromises the usefulness of that water body, both for recreational purposes as well as for habitat for the plants and animals that live there. Sacchet: Thank you Debbie. This is a public hearing so I’d like to invite any residents that would like to address this issue in front of us. Is there anybody here? If you want to come up to the podium. Kathy Slavics: Do we have to come up? Sacchet: You have to come up, sorry. And if you want to pull the microphone up a little bit so it points, and if you want to tell us your name and address for the record, we’d appreciate that. Kathy Slavics: My name is Kathy Slavics and I live on Dakota Lane which is, my back yard backs up to St. Hubert’s which is on Rice Marsh Lake, and I am not familiar with a lot of what’s proposing but I’m curious with 212 coming in, and with Rice Marsh Lake expanding towards 212, how much are we going to be losing of kind of our buffer with noise and all of that because it looks like it’s going to be expanded quite a bit. Sacchet: Do you want to say something about that Lori? Haak: Sure. Actually they’re on Dakota and. Basically the existing pond, if you look, the existing pond is right here. So the expansion is primarily to the south and east. There is a small area of existing trees here that is proposed to be removed. But there also is an existing open water area, if you’re familiar, can see it from your home probably up here. So it’s just, the scale on this is 1 equals 60, so it’s extending approximately 120 feet further south than the edge of the open water. So when you look at the entire, I’ll go back to this one. When you look at the entire area as a whole, this is where the edge of the existing open water is, and you know the proposal is to extend it a little bit further south. So it still won’t nearly go out to the main part of Rice Marsh Lake. And again the area that will be removed is kind of right in here. Kathy Slavics: Okay. And just out of curiosity do you know where the easement is that needs to be done on somebody’s property? Haak: Actually there isn’t. This is the Jerome property. All of these four, 1, 2, 3, 4 are all city owned. This is the one that has an easement so that property owner has already signed the easement is my understanding or that’s in negotiations so. Kathy Slavics: So basically all of this area, I’m right here on the cul-de-sac. I have 2 ½ acres that back up to St. Hubert’s. None of that will be changing? I mean I don’t have to worry about, because I know part of my property is on the other side of the trail. Haak: Right, no. The only thing would be that there will be access across that trail but they would… Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 10 Kathy Slavics: Right, and we have a couple easements in our back yard right now so. Haak: Yep, and that will stay, access will remain into the open part. Kathy Slavics: Okay. And I wonder too, we had a ton flooding all along here where 101, you know towards 101 that I wonder if, I mean hopefully that...because we lost a lot of our trails, and do you know if this is affecting the proposed trails as far as going all the way around the lake? Haak: Ah no. The, whatever parks and recreation trail system they have worked out, this would not affect that. The Park Director has reviewed all of these plans. Kathy Slavics: Okay good, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else would like to address, please come forward and if you let us know your name and address. And pull the microphone towards you please. Bob Myers: Bob Myers, 8131 Dakota Lane. Could we put up the map or the, by Dakota Lane. Haak: Sure. Bob Myers: Currently these lots run into where the proposed pond to be expanded, is that correct? These are the corners of the lots. Haak: That’s something we’ll have to check into. Again this is a watershed district project and I assume that there were no impacts to private properties unless those lot lines. Bob Myers: I am the original owner of the land. I very well know where my property line is and these are the corners of my property. These are my neighbor’s properties, and they are all impacted. Haak: We would need to check on that and determine whether or not there are drainage and utility easements existing or if in fact there, those property corners are appropriately shown. That’s something again that I was not aware that, if that is indeed the case, we’ll take a look at that. Sacchet: So what you’re stating is that according to your knowledge some of this ponding would touch onto individual’s properties. Bob Myers: Very much so. Sacchet: Okay. Bob Myers: Yes, the property lines, property actually now extends past where the existing pond is and into a private pond. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 11 Sacchet: Yeah, that’s definitely something that we need to look into. Bob Myers: It’s actually shown on the map. So the map is drawn correctly, but the property lines on there. Haak: That’s news to me. We’ll check into that. Sacchet: We’ll have to look into it. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Bob Myers: Well my next question is then, there’s property line markers for these lots and I’m wondering how those would be affected. Haak: Well that would, I’m sorry. Sacchet: Go ahead. Haak: If I may. That would depend on whether or not that is indeed the case. If that’s the case then we would have to work with, or the watershed district would have to come up with a proposal for that so that would need to be addressed as a part of that, and you know certainly again if it’s on your property they would need to communicate with you regarding that so, we’ll look into that. Bob Myers: Alright, my next question is when is the start and finish of the construction. Haak: For these…we’re looking at winter construction because it minimizes the amount of impact to the rest of the water resource. Some of the others are waiting…this construction season but again the property owners adjacent to these would be noticed prior to that construction. I believe, I forget exactly how we worded the condition. I think yes, at least 2 weeks prior to the beginning of work is what is recommended. Bob Myers: So most likely it won’t be until next winter? Haak: For these along Rice Marsh Lake, that’s correct. That’s my understanding. Bob Myers: Okay. And my last question is that, will the property taxes of the people adjacent to the pond, are they affected in any way? Sacchet: Pond proximity tax. Do we have such a thing? Aanenson: Yeah, I’ll speak to that issue. No, there’s no assessments. No, the watershed district’s paying for these projects with the city paying a small portion. Bob Myers: Okay, thank you . Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 12 Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else would like to speak to this item? This is your chance to come forward. Seeing nobody else getting up, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Lori, did I understand Alyson is actually going to look at this. Haak: Yes she is. Sacchet: What you propose, I mean this is pretty significant information that was potentially impacting this, isn’t it? Haak: It is. Sacchet: So what would we do if this is the case? Aanenson: Well they would have to have permission to approve that pond. If that pond is on private property, they would have to get permission for that so. So it looks like we need some clarification. I think that can be resolved through a condition that appropriate easements are secured and access to property if there is an issue. Sacchet: We can add a condition to that effect. Aanenson: Correct. That’s what I would recommend, yep. Yep, and then the watershed district also communicate to those property owners showing them where that property line is. Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any wisdom to share ladies? Aanenson: I still think it’d be a good condition to put in regardless. Sacchet: Did you want to say anything to this still Lori? Haak: Yes if I might. We have pulled the plat from the Hidden Valley subdivision, which. Aanenson: Can you zoom in on that Nann? Pull it towards you a little bit Lori and down. Haak: It’s hard to see. I believe these are the lots in question through here. There is a utility easement for sanitary sewer that runs through the rear of those yards. In addition there’s a utility and drainage easement that goes up to the southern edge of that area, so when this subdivision was platted, there was accommodation made for drainage and utility related improvements in these areas. That’s why the city gets these easements is so that we can manage water in these areas. That being said, there is a public right to ponding or utilities within those area. That doesn’t minimize the fact that it really is in the presence of the city, and especially when we do city projects, again this is not a city project, to work closely with the property owners so they know what to expect on their property because even though we do have the easement, there are property rights that are not conveyed with that easement. So that’s the additional information that we can provide you. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 13 Sacchet: Can you point out on this plat where actually the pond is going to be. Where the current one is and how it expands. Just approximately. I think that’d be interesting for us. Also for the residents here. Over on the right edge. Haak: It’s right in, the existing pond is right in here. The proposed pond is down through here. Sacchet: Okay. McDonald: So the pond really doesn’t expand that much to the north. The expansion and everything is more to the south. Haak: That’s correct. Actually, it’s kind of interesting. As I look at this in more detail, again this is new to me so you’ll have to excuse me here. The edge of the trail is at a certain elevation and actually the first let’s say 20 feet south of the trail will remain the same. There will be excavation beginning approximately 20 feet from that south edge of the trail. So these lines here are the proposed contours and actually this is the middle of the existing open water it appears. So, and again you can’t see those on the monitors or on television but here I can see that the contours that are existing, the deepest part is out here which is basically where that northern slope would begin being graded. So yes, the extension of the pond would really be south of where that existing open water is. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you. Haak: You’re welcome. Sacchet: So we had a public hearing. We’re discussing. Any comments or questions? Do we, ready for a motion? Keefe: I’ll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 06-06 subject to the following conditions 1 through 14. 14 being all appropriate permissions and easements must be obtained prior to the undertaking of any construction. Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? McDonald: Second. Sacchet: Any further comments? Friendly amendments? No? Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #06-06, subject to the following conditions: 1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 14 2. The applicant shall notify nearby property owners of the proposed project at least two weeks prior to beginning work. The notice shall, at a minimum, provide a summary of the purpose of the project, the timeline for project completion, and contact information for someone with RPBCWD who is able to provide more information about the project. It is recommended that the applicant work with the City to identify property owners receiving notice and to provide a link to a project website from the City’s website. 3. The applicant shall restore any disturbed areas and restore or replace any damage to infrastructure on City property. 4. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded within the 7, 14, 21 day time frames depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow areas shall receive temporary protection within 24 hours of connection to surface waters. 5. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow area and for slopes of 3:1. All remaining areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion. 6. The applicant shall provide information regarding the fate of the excavated/excess material, as well as the stabilization and/or containment of the material. 7. Temporary energy dissipation shall be installed at existing flared end sections to the bottom of the basin at the end of each day to protect against erosion. This could include temporary plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric secured to the soil. 8. All existing outlets/proposed outlet structures shall be temporary riser structures until the ponds and adjacent areas are stable. 9. Street sweeping and scraping shall be needed daily (potentially more often) during active haul times. A dedicated site pickup sweeper may be needed. 10. The applicant shall provide details as to how dewatering will be accomplished for the basins in this project. 11. The applicant shall have a flocculent available on the project to facilitate sediment removal from sediment laden water. 12. Energy dissipation shall be provided at all discharge points from dewatering pumps. Waters receiving dewatering discharges should be large enough to handle the volume and velocity of the water. 13. 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, impacts below the OHW of Rice Marsh Lake), Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 15 14. All appropriate permissions and easements must be obtained prior to the undertaking of any construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND NORTHWEST OF FUTURE HIGHWAY 312 (1500 PIONEER TRAIL), PLANNING CASE NO. 05-24, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes Chris Moehrl Westwood Professional Services Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road Bruce Jeurissen Belle Plain Nancy Worm Belle Plain Jim Benshoof Wenck Associates Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard Kate Aanenson reviewed the findings of the AUAR. McDonald: You mentioned about diversity and the way we’re building all of this and one of the things that I guess we’ve had this discussion before but these things keep kind of coming at us piecemeal and then it’s difficult to put them into the context of the overall plan. At one time that area down there, we were looking at more commercial development for tax purposes, and what I’m seeing now by looking at this, this is becoming pretty much residential and how does that impact you know our comprehensive plan and what we’re looking for. Aanenson: Good question. This property over here would like to go more commercial. Probably do new urbanism, mixed use project. And this piece over here is still guided industrial. So this piece would switch, it’s guided low or medium, so they’re contemplating a switch to a different land use. McDonald: As far as the overall stock then of what we have available for development, you feel that we’re still okay as far as what we set aside for commercial? The possibility here for commercial development. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 16 Aanenson: Correct. Yes, with this property, yes. McDonald: Okay. And the road and the infrastructure that we put in would tend to support that if someone were to come in with a plan that would be acceptable. Aanenson: That’s correct. McDonald: Okay. That’s all I have. Sacchet: Any other questions for Kate? Thank you very much Kate. Bob you’re on. Bob Generous continued with the staff report outlining the project. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions. Debbie, you have any questions? Larson: Not at the moment. Sacchet: Not right now? Mark? Undestad: I just had one for you Bob. Just on that wetland. On item 10, page 18. MnDot right- of-way and you need more, they need to secure more land for wetland mitigation other than what they already have? Generous: The City has some land that they potentially can do the mitigation in. They just have to get the plan approved. They have to make sure that there’s sufficient area for them to do it. It’s a high quality wetland mitigation that they need to do and we think we have the site for that. Undestad: That would stay within the city? Generous: Yes, that would stay within the city. Sacchet: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a number of questions. Let me start, in regards to the rezoning. When you go PUD you don’t need a variance for private streets, right? Generous: Correct. Also when you do multi, it’s only for single family and twin homes that you need a variance on the use of a private street. Keefe: Right. And then the access road to the north is you said moved to the east because of slope reasons or? Generous: Multiple reasons. One, we wanted to get it onto MnDot right-of-way. Two, that’s where yeah, there’s significant slope. That’s a bluff area in there and it’s also heavily wooded. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 17 The Bluff Creek Overlay District has designated that whole hill as the primary zone and we’re trying to preserve it in it’s natural state. Keefe: Yeah, it looks like there’s a hill, does it have bluff on the south end of this property or any others to the north? Generous: Not on the north. Keefe: I see a 30% slope looks like down maybe on the south end. None of these other ones. Generous: No, they don’t. Keefe: It looks like they’re, yeah. Well okay. Retaining walls, you said they’re terracing. What are the heights of the retaining walls? When you look at the north, it looks like one elevation comes out at 948 on the north end. Aanenson: We can let the applicant go through that. They have a slide show too and they’ve reduced all those and I think they can answer some of those questions. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: That’s it? Jerry. McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions that you know we talked about diversity of housing and everything and one of the concerns I have about this is, to me it looks a lot like Liberty on Bluff Creek. And I guess my concern is that if we’re going to look at diversity of housing styles and you know different types of appearances, I’m not sure we’re meeting that here. And the question is, have you worked with the developer a little bit to get this to be a more distinctive neighborhood than just Liberty on Bluff Creek East? Aanenson: We made that suggestion so. So that’s their marketing and how they want to present it. McDonald: Well I guess, you know that is a concern because that’s one of the things that we talked about, and I know you went through a lot with Liberty on Bluff Creek and we did a lot to try to get the look and feel of that. Okay, that’s the only question I have for staff. Sacchet: Just to follow up on this. So is this kind of a variation of the Liberty development to the west? Aanenson: Correct. Generous: Yes, it uses two of the basic unit types that they have. Sacchet: It’s the same type of, except there is a third view in a time. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 18 Generous: Well in the other one there’s 4 I believe. Aanenson: Yeah, I think if they went through that they can show you the product. Sacchet: Alright. So if there are no further questions for staff, I’d like to invite the applicant. If you want to come forward. If you want to add to what staff presented. Anything you want to add. You want to mention your name. Shawn Siders: Yeah, sure. Good evening Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. My name is Shawn Siders and I’m with Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company. With me this evening I have Kevin Clark. He’s our Vice President of Land Development. And with us also is Chris Moehrl, our project engineer with Westwood Professional Services. We’re pleased to be in front of you this evening to present with the Creekside. And since we first came to the commission and spoke to you in August, we made a number of revisions and we’re excited about those revisions and I‘ll share those with you in a few moments but before we do have that conversation I just want to run through the two products that we are offering on the Creekside. I’m going to…presentation here because I have some photographs. Sacchet: Solving the technical problems. Needs to be waken up. If you want to pull the microphone a little straighter to me and we get better audio. Thank you. Let’s see, did we manage to wake up the laptop? It’s in hibernation huh. Back up hard copy. It’s always good to have handy. Something’s happening. Do you want to jump in from another angle while they’re trying to fix that for you? Shawn Siders: No problems. If we could actually have this zoom on to the table here. The first product that we’re offering in Liberty Creekside is a traditional. Got it? Sacchet: No, that’s on the table. Alright. Shawn Siders: Is a traditional townhome collection that we’ve named the Premiere Collection. We propose development of 98 of these units as Bob indicated around the perimeter of the development. These units are 3 levels of living space and range in square foot from 1,500 to 2,400 square feet each. Sacchet: So they’re walk out in the back? Shawn Siders: Walkout, look out and full basements. Just depending on the topography of each unit. Sacchet: How many of those units do you have in the bigger body of your development to the west? Shawn Siders: Within Bluff Creek there are 98 I believe. 54? Sacchet: 54, okay. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 19 Aanenson: It’s a smaller number isn’t it? Sacchet: Smaller number, okay. Aanenson: It’s the smallest of the unit types. Shawn Siders: Yes, correct. Each of these units do have a 2 car front loaded garage with a, as Bob indicated, a driveway that will accommodate 2 additional vehicles. Since we last discussed this project with you we’ve also added additional exterior treatments, as you can see. We have introduced brick and stone. Varied color patterns as well as varied building materials within you know each unit, which is certainly an upgrade from what we have used in other communities where we’ve introduced the Premiere product line. We’ve done this for a variety of reasons, and most importantly is to create a unique community presence with these Premiere units. The price point for these are approximately $275,000 to $300,000. The second produce is our urban row home collection that we have named the Concord Collection. We proposed development of 48 of these units within the interior of the development. These units are also 3 levels of living space and range in square footage from approximately 1,700 to 2,400 square feet. Each unit also has a standard 2 car rear loaded garage so these will, from the street, and there’s also a driveway that will accommodate 2 additional vehicles. We’ve also, and these as well included upgrade of the architecture. Included additional façade treatments as well as brick and stone. We’ve added awnings as well as raised decks to provide additional private space outdoors in addition to just the court yard. And the price ranges for this collection is $230,000 to $250,000. In addition to the varied building materials on the façade we’ve also developed 5 color schemes that will be used throughout the development. Here is the color board. Now this does not include stone. We’re working with our color consultant to actually finalize this and complete this, to include the stone. But you can see here that these 5 color schemes will be used throughout the development and so we’re creating an anti monotony standard that we would implement in any other community. Sacchet: And how many of those units do you have in the other? There are more of those, right? Shawn Siders: There are more of those, yes sir. Sacchet: Do we know about how many? Kevin Clark: There’s like 106. Sacchet: Over 100, okay. Thank you. Shawn Siders: Now I’d like to switch just to some of the overall changes that we’ve implemented into the plan since we last discussed these with you in August. In August we did present to you a homogenous community with a traditional townhome design. Since then we have revisited the product mix and have expanded our home side offering to include an urban row home, which is our Concord Collection, and those are located here throughout the center of the development. The Premiere product line, our traditional townhome is placed around the perimeter of the development and the reason we revisited the product mix is because the Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 20 Planning Commission did express an interest in seeing you know diversity in products. We wanted to also provide a unique community presence with the two products, and offer additional life cycle housing opportunities to the current and future residents. Upon review of the overall site plan after our previous discussion, we’ve also altered the layout from what you previously saw. We have rotated this building 90 degrees so that we do have a varied streetscape. We have actually removed the Premiere building that was located in this cul-de-sac here, and that’s just been integrated into the site. We have narrowed this street up here to make it a private street. We have also revised the second access to go through the MnDot property, as Bob indicated. We’ve included 21 guest parking areas that were not previously designated. We have a guest parking area here. There’s 11 spaces in this cul-de-sac and there are actually 10 spaces up here. Now we understand that there will be parking allowed on public streets, but we also understand that parking will be prohibited within the private streets, and so they will be posted as such and we’ve accommodated that additional parking within these parking areas within each pod. During the evolution of this plan and based on your previous direction, we have worked to tighten up the site and reduce the overall retaining walls. Since we last visited with you we have actually reduced the overall height of the retaining walls by 30%. We’ve also worked diligently with your parks and recreation board to identify the preferred location of a trail through the development. As Mr. Generous indicated we have provided a trail configuration that runs through the southern perimeter of the home sites, and that will impact the Bluff Creek Overlay District. We have, as well as the City have worked awfully diligently to make sure that there is no development impacts within the primary Bluff Creek Overlay District. However, in evaluating different alignments we’ve come to the conclusion that this trail configuration makes the most sense for the community as well as our development because we’re also able then to tie in this trail configuration here. This will be preserved as an open space. We anticipate having a shelter with some benches to provide an open area, an active open area for our residents to enjoy. Primary access to the site, as Mr. Generous indicated will be through the Degler-Peterson parcel at an intersection that’s prescribed by the city. The second access, and we really have to thank Lori Haak who was here earlier this evening and Kate for their diligent work on finding a creative solution to protect the Bluff Creek, the primary Bluff Creek Overlay District in this wooded area, through the Fox property and we’ve identified a second access that we can, that we will work with MnDot and we’ll work with the City to transfer some of the wetland mitigation that will be required with the MnDot project to a city owned property and we will work with those various agencies to transfer that responsibility and basically take over the creation of that additional high quality wetland. It is our understanding that previously MnDot did provide an access agreement with Mr. Jeurissen to access his home from Pioneer Trail road. We’ve reviewed this access agreement and it only proposes access for the existing single family home, and it does stipulate within it that it will be extinguished once the site is developed and their residence is more than this one single family house living on this site. That access point was never proposed to provide a fully developed access to this neighborhood in going forward. One other item that’s come up during the discussions since we last visited with you, city management and staff has proposed the creation of a Lyman Avenue fee to share in the cost of upgrading Lyman Avenue. Based on the plan that we’ve presenting to you this evening, we understand and agree with that Lyman Avenue fee and we are proud to partner with the City to create the opportunities to upgrade, to create additional capital projects that will provide additional long term benefits to the current and future residents of the city. Finally at the last meeting of the commission, and hopefully Commissioner McDonald this gets a little bit to what you were Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 21 asking about earlier. The commission asked that we illustrate the views of this development from the Peterson parcel. We worked with our engineer and obtained our plans to develop a sketch that will kind of illustrate how the Peterson parcel will look at the Liberty at Creekside project once both are fully developed. And if you could zoom in just a little bit. You can see here, this is actually the proposed Peterson development, and this is the Liberty at Creekside development. Now this is at the closest point of the two developments and these are about 700 feet in distance from one another. You’ll note that of course that much of this area will be landscaped and there is quite a distance and the Peterson parcel is actually a little bit higher than what the Liberty at Creekside development will be at it’s low point here. So we just kind of wanted to show the commission how these two developments would look on one another and there will be a lot of buffer and we really do feel that this is an appropriate transition between the Peterson neighborhood and the Liberty at Creekside neighborhood. And finally I’d just like to take this opportunity to thank city staff for their support during the evolution of this project. It’s certainly been a work in progress. I’d also like to thank you for your past support on the Liberty and Bluff Creek project and hopefully your support on the project before you this evening, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions? Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a couple. When you’re putting in the trail along the Bluff Creek, how do you minimize the impacts? Shawn Siders: We will be grading to a certain extent of that area anyways so we’ve worked with the engineer. We’re just going to have to be very diligent in implementing our NPDES permit and working with city staff to really minimize and finalizing the exact configuration so that we minimize the Bluff Creek Overlay District to the extent that it is possible so that we can accommodate that trail configuration. Keefe: Okay. One of the things that I saw was there was a number of, and I don’t know if it’s on your current plan but there were a number of trees that are fairly significant trees which you’re taking out on the north end of your property. Are those still slated to come out? Shawn Siders: Yes sir. Keefe: Okay. So that remains the same? Shawn Siders: Yes sir. Keefe: Okay. Alright, that’s all. Shawn Siders: Somebody asked at the previous question, I’ll just jump in. Somebody asked what the D stood for in the landscaping plans. That actually stands for a multi-trunk tree so. So in case anybody’s still curious this evening, that’s what that stands for. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 22 Keefe: Well and it does look like you’ve added, it looks like you’ve exceeded the minimums in regards to landscaping it looks like, and is there a chunk of that on the south side of the creek or is most of that on the north side? Shawn Siders: A majority of that is serving to the south side of, you know within the wetland mitigation area but we do also have a pretty aggressive landscaping plan as we do within each most of our communities too, to really dress it up and add a character, create a neighborhood feel. Keefe: Well that’s terrific. Sacchet: Okay? Jerry. McDonald: Yeah, I have some questions for you. Can you compare the prices for the Concord and the Premiere back up in Liberty on Bluff Creek with this development? Shawn Siders: The sales prices will be comparable. McDonald: And I guess the thing I’m having problems with as I brought up before is when we talked about diversity, I’m concerned about these neighborhoods looking the same and it’s just you know a continual thing. Now I understand you’ve got a break but you’re also doing a development in another piece of property inbetween here. How is this going to be different if I drive through the neighborhood, how am I going to be able to tell a difference between these and the ones up on Liberty on Bluff Creek? Shawn Siders: Understood. Let me get to your, I don’t know if it was a question more than a statement but we did study a number of possible development scenarios and one of those did include the introduction of a single family home product that we offer into this site. And with the partnership that we’re making with the city to expand Bluff Creek Boulevard and the associated utility improvements with that, with the Lyman Avenue fee and what these other items, the cost to develop the land and then the subsequent cost of a house was really outside of a market that we weren’t comfortable with involving ourselves. So that is kind of hopefully answering your question as to why we’ve landed where we have because we have studied it very carefully. How this is going to vary from Liberty on Bluff Creek is quite honestly the views. This development will have striking views of course of the creek, as well as the wetland mitigation areas. We’re making a number of site improvements that will be different from Liberty on Bluff Creek. Where we have a swimming pool there, we have, it has more natural amenities on this site. McDonald: Well I guess maybe you’re misunderstanding my point in all this. I’m not questioning the product that you’re putting on the land. I think you’ve done a good job as far as the layout. What I’m questioning is, is the distinctiveness between the two neighborhoods, and I guess what I look at is, that’s more of a façade approach. You know the outside can look a little bit different and that’s my concern here is that there is no difference between the two neighborhoods. And one of the things that we looked at going forward in this was to get diversity. I know we’ve had conversations about that, you know with Liberty on Bluff Creek Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 23 and to your credit I think you’ve done an excellent job there. My concern here again is, what’s the difference? And that’s one of the things we’re trying to put in this area is uniqueness as far as product. Again I’m not questioning the fact you’re putting townhomes. Or I’m not saying it should be single family. What you’ve got’s fine. It’s the way it looks. That’s my question to you. Shawn Siders: Understood and I appreciate the, at least the support of you know what we’re proposing and how the site is laid out. We do appreciate that because we did spend a lot of time with that. As far as the difference in the products or the alteration or the difference in the product, not the product mix but the exterior or the facades and how those will be treated, what I can say is, and we do have, you know we have the same color scheme introduced as Liberty on Bluff Creek but something that we can look at is how the color configurations are matched. So perhaps the Liberty on Bluff Creek, while it’s designed the color you know color groupings are combined in a certain way, we can certainly look at introducing a different, I’m trying to find the right word here, scheme in how we necessarily design the colors because they are relatively distinct from one another. McDonald: Okay, then what you’re saying is you are willing to consider at least the color schemes and some maybe façade schemes that would give some uniqueness to this neighborhood. Shawn Siders: What I would say is that, and it’s difficult to explain because we haven’t gone to this extent yet with Creekside but what we would be willing to consider is the colors on this particular board are introduced into the community, if you will. So for instance Liberty on Bluff Creek has a grouping of let’s say 2 or 3 buildings that use a single color you know and then they’re next to let’s say color scheme 4. Perhaps there are ways that we can, and that’s a common element as you go through Liberty on Bluff Creek. Perhaps we can look at you know just one perhaps working with 5 and then that works well with 3 and 2 and so introducing different patterns into how the color schemes are actually implemented into Creekside. McDonald: Okay, so you are willing to work with the city to come up with some uniqueness in this development. Shawn Siders: Yes sir, within this color board we’d certainly be willing to. McDonald: Within that color board. And that color board again what you’re looking at is you’re not going to use all of that down at Liberty at Bluff Creek are you? Isn’t that kind of the choices you’re looking at. Shawn Siders: We’ve introduced all 5 color schemes. McDonald: All 5 colors now. Okay. I hate to put you on the spot on this and everything but it’s just, this was one of the things that we looked at as far as development in this area and what we were trying to do as far as diversity and you have to understand, I feel kind of strongly about this. And again working with you on the Liberty on Bluff Creek I think you all did an excellent job there. I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to work with the city. Realign the road. Redo Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 24 things. I know that that’s not easy, and again I am not questioning the product type you’re trying to put on the site. I’m not saying anything about that. I’m looking for strictly uniqueness. Shawn Siders: Understood. McDonald: And I’m sorry for. Shawn Siders: No, no. I appreciate that. No, I appreciate that. McDonald: That’s the heart of the question I want to get at is how are we going to make this different. Shawn Siders: Understood. Sacchet: Alright? Debbie. Larson: Just to expand a little bit on what Commissioner Jerry was saying. I mean looking at this row of 6, to me that’s you know, it’s a nice design. Is there any way that you guys would consider maybe doing within each set of 2, different colors? I mean just to get it to, to me this looks like a row house you know and then in the back side it’s very boring, but that’s okay. I mean, but is there, well I don’t know. I look at the back and I just kind of go, well you know to me that looks like an apartment complex on the back side. Shawn Siders: Understood. Larson: And so, what I’m wondering is, is there any way of the paint you know and the color scheme if you’ve accepted all those, and they’re all very fuzzy I think. Shawn Siders: Thank you. Larson: You know, is it possible that you could break it up somehow and make it not look like such a long stretch of you know. Shawn Siders: Understood. Larson: Just a thought I mean. Shawn Siders: Can I perhaps point out what we have done, and I don’t know how clear it will show up on this is, this is I believe the same product that you were just looking at but there are actually, that was Premiere. We have actually introduced a varied color palette as you go from you know this is a different color from this which is a different color from this, so we have. Larson: Right, yeah that’s what I’m talking about. Shawn Siders: Yeah, so we will do that. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 25 Kevin Clark: But not on the Premiere product. Larson: Not on this one? Shawn Siders: The Premiere. Kevin Clark: We reviewed this also on Liberty on Bluff Creek and the challenge you get into is we have different elevations with these and they bridge through different units when you have garages with different roof associations, and when we start mixing all those palettes, I think the goal you know. Larson: Oh I see. Well that’s what I’m saying if you do 2. Kevin Clark: Becomes kind of yucky because you’re blending too many colors. We’re working with a very professional color consultant to not only bring together the colors but also the materials so we’re working with varying siding sizes. Different textures with the shake and then also your roofing. We’ve introduced, I guess going back even into Liberty, you know stepping back into the project, and I know Commissioner McDonald your request for diversity, is that we’ve elevated the diversity and the architecture throughout the project and in moving into the Creekside neighborhood, we thought we had met that objective and were also going to bring that to this portion of the site too. But from a color standpoint, this product is, just doesn’t lend itself to kind of that alternating color scheme because it’s just. Larson: Well I’m not saying every unit. Kevin Clark: But even within the products, when you change the roof lines. I’m sorry, go ahead. Larson: Well I don’t know, I’m just trying to help you alleviate a problem without having to come up with any major design changes. More so just in colors that you know. McDonald: I guess the thing that you know, if I could kind of expand upon that. You’ve got another development between here and Liberty on Bluff Creek. Shawn Siders: Correct. McDonald: My concern is, I don’t want to see all the same things going down Pioneer Trail. That’s what we’re trying to break up and I guess, and again we went through at Liberty at Bluff Creek. It is not our position to tell you what colors to put on there. Shawn Siders: Correct. McDonald: Heaven forbid. We’re not designers. All we can say is we would like to say something that accomplishes a goal. And I think how you do it, that’s your job. All we’re trying to do is give you a little bit of guidance and again, we want to get some diversity so that the people as they drive through these neighborhoods, they are distinctive and people who move into Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 26 them can take some pride in them. It’s not just that we’re the eastern part of this other development, that’s the big development. And that’s all we’re looking for is you know down the road. You know we pride ourselves on individual communities and the fact that people are very proud of their communities around here. I mean we get that all the time. We’re trying to make sure that that happens again with the development you’ve got. You come before. You do a good product. We have a lot of faith and confidence in you, and that’s I think all we’re trying to say here tonight is yeah, maybe we’ve got a little bit of problem on diversity. What can you do about it? Kevin Clark: At this point I think we feel we’ve done what we need to do. We’ve stepped up and provided four separate products in the projects at Liberty. Advanced the architecture. Advanced the color palette. What we look at here is from a timing standpoint, this is rolling out 3 years after we start Liberty. We’ll probably do some grading next year but really not start units until the following year. So this is a roll out position for us, and why then we are with the two products here, we have a small contingent of the products that Commissioner Larson is talking about. The more traditional townhome product that we would plan on moving into in Creekside. We’re investing millions of dollars into a model center that we’ll be starting this spring to support all these products, and look at this again as a support item opportunity for us then to also play on that investment. So it is key for us that in, while I hear what yourself and others are maybe saying about diversity, we think we are adding that and that this site, as Shawn mentioned, I think is built on those views. The fact that I don’t think you’re going to really see the site. Driving down Pioneer and driving down the new collector road, you’re going to have to come into this neighborhood to really observe and get a feel for what this little nitch market here in this area is going to really feel like. With the streetscape and more urban product facing the road, and then the traditional product which on purpose went around the perimeter to fit into the contour. To allow the walkout units to more accommodate the grade. I think that the area’s going to be diverse or have that uniqueness by the nature of it’s setting and how we set the product into the topography. Sacchet: I have two questions primarily. One is kind of a detail question. It just reminded me when you said they’re all walkout, the Premiere levels. Premiere type. Also the ones on the very north. Kevin Clark: No, as Shawn mentioned earlier there will be full basement, some lookout and the walkouts… Sacchet: Okay, so there’s a mix like that. Okay. My main question is retaining walls. You mentioned you were able to reduce the height of retaining walls. Could you walk us through a little bit the retaining wall situation if you would please. Shawn Siders: Sure. When we were first in front of you in August, I believe we were proposing a 30 foot retaining wall on the northern edge of the development. Since that time we’ve actually introduced a tiered retaining wall system and this lower retaining wall will actually be 10 feet tall and this upper retaining wall will be 11 feet tall. The tallest retaining wall in the entire site, and part of it is to support the street. The other part is to accommodate the trail. This one will be 15 feet here. These other retaining walls will be shorter than as our these walls as well as these Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 27 walls. These retaining walls I guess let me back up a little bit. These retaining walls will also tier retaining walls. These will be 11 feet tall and then this one will be 4 feet tall, and this one will be 8 feet tall. Of course any retaining wall over 4 feet in height in the city will have to be designed by a professional engineer and we understand that and we have no problem working with city staff to design a retaining wall that is, you know will support the site and will accommodate and have long term value to the site. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. It looks like we have no further questions for you. Thank you very much for answering our questions and your presentation. With that, this is a public hearing so I’d like to invite any residents that would like to address this item to come forward at this time. Seeing, do I see somebody trying to get up. Yes, I do see somebody trying to get up. If you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Jim Benshoof: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Jim Benshoof, traffic engineer with the firm of Wenck and Associates and we have been retained by Jeff Fox and Rick Dorsey to participate with others on a planning team on their behalf to begin planning efforts for their property. Coordinate with city staff. Coordinate with developers of other nearby properties in terms of the overall planning for this area, and I’d like to offer, well just a few remarks as to an interface we see relative to this project. Just as Kate earlier began with a bit of an overview, I would like to do the same very briefly. So we’re representing the property outlined in yellow, that owned by Rick Dorsey, Jeff Fox and others in their families. We have from a traffic standpoint, kind of the items outlined in pink are of particular importance, and of course they include the east/west collector roadway through the property. Given the projection for 12,000 vehicles a day ultimately on that roadway. The alignment, the design are very important, and we look forward to further follow up with city staff as to those issues coordinating with ultimate development of the property. And then to the west another matter of great importance is a planned north/south roadway that is part of the AUAR. A roadway intended to connect the east/west collector to Lyman Boulevard and of course it also would have a real importance in connecting and providing access for this development now before you. So that’s very important. We again have full intentions to follow up further with city staff, developer of the property to the west, and others as appropriate for the continued planning of that north/south roadway. Then lastly, shown in pink, the item I’d like to focus a little more attention on this evening as it relates to Liberty at Creekside, and that is the suggestion for a second means of access to and from this Liberty at Creekside development. This is just a little more of a blow up of that area, and the, in the pink of course is the entry road on the west connecting into this Liberty at Creekside development. The comment in the staff report indicating a need for a second means of entry and access, and that what has been kind of dashed in blue as the logical choice. And granted that the alignment of course is flexible, not totally set with the suggestion in the staff report that it simply come onto that MnDot right-of-way from the Liberty at Creekside property. And though, I mean I can see myself a lot of logic for that sort of connection. It also involves some pretty serious you know questions and I think issues that still remain to be addressed. You note the notation of an expectation of about 600 to 700 vehicles per day. That is based on the, of course the planned magnitude of development in Liberty at Creekside and the typical trip generation, the traffic patterns that would be expected. So we would expect that Liberty at Creekside would generate you know 600 to 700 vehicles per day on that roadway and Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 28 of course about 1,000 feet of that roadway would extend through the Fox property before it reaches the east/west collector roadway. Well why is that an issue? Because it’s an issue at the present time because as this exhibit illustrates, the current guiding, as I understand, for this property in question, low density residential. Generous: Medium. Aanenson: Low or medium. Generous: Medium density. Aanenson: Low or medium. Jim Benshoof: Okay, it’s low or medium. Thank you for that. Sorry. Generous: On Fox’s property. Jim Benshoof: Okay, well thank you for that correction. Now the point being that what that guiding, low or medium density residential, a road coming through that property, serving 600 to 700 vehicles per day for the adjacent property, would be a significant impact. And one could suggest quite a high likelihood of conflicts, of some incompatibility with that level of traffic relative to that type of development. And so just think it important that you at this time sort of recognize these unanswered questions relative to what would be the effect on that property. And further would suggest that one way or the other, as the city proceeds with Liberty at Creekside, there be measures to try to ensure a satisfactory outcome, both in terms of access for Liberty at Creekside and for avoidance of undue negative impacts on the Fox property. And I’d like to share with you kind of examples of two possibilities as to sort of options to preserve and I’ll admit before showing these to you that they represent some wild and crazy ideas, and I’m not meaning to suggest that either of these is the absolute answer, but rather to use these as examples to encourage you to try to retain flexibility and avoid the potential future problems. One would be kind of some concept like this whereby there is a public loop street system created within Liberty at Creekside. The sole access to the east/west collector, but the problem associated with an excessively long cul-de-sac would be avoided by having a public loop street system. Part of that would cross the corner of the Fox property but I understand that possibly could be worked out in terms of a possible street align, so I’ll offer that as again as one possible option. The other one that is, a subject that has been already addressed somewhat. I’m not sure of the absolute status of this. This notion that there has been some approval on the part of MnDot for access south to Pioneer Trail, and again I don’t know the exact status of that but perhaps that is still an option that would be worthy of some investigation. So again with that I’m just suggesting that the, this notion of a second access that would first cross into the MnDot property and then ultimately the Fox property to the east/west collector roadway is not an option that just does not have some serious questions associated with it. And would simply advise that you recognize those questions and seek to preserve options, so that again that property would not incur serious negative impacts and of course that other objectives of the city also would be met at the same time. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 29 Sacchet: Thank you. Kate, do you want to say anything about this or maybe Alyson or Bob. Aanenson: Sure. I’ll briefly say both options were explored early on. We’ve already indicated, as has the applicant, researched the access to the south. That’s where the existing home as it stays today with future development as any situation where we have a private drive onto a state road, or a county road. We always try to, our ordinance prohibits that. In this circumstance the driveway was given just for the existing home. …we worked with MnDot to try to explore that option and it has been eliminated as an option. Sacchet: That’s the south access. Aanenson: That is the south access. So it has been eliminated as an option. Fauske: Plus the creek crossing. The additional creek, the environmental. Aanenson: Which is huge. We’d have to go back and amend the AUAR so in working with MnDot, that was eliminated as an option. The applicant did look at the loop system and there’s grade issues and I’ll let Alyson address that… Fauske: Planning commissioners, we actually examined that alignment, that looped alignment. A couple months ago we were in a meeting looking at that second access issue and we looked at it and the grades are simply prohibitive through there to make that additional connection. In addition we looked at the impact to the trees up there. You know a nice bluff of trees up there and just looking at taking out those trees for a road when there was another alternative. For those reasons we. Sacchet: So that was ruled out as well. Fauske: Yes it was. Sacchet: Okay. That leaves a question of the impact. How big an impact does, are we impacting this property by basically putting a requirement of the road access on there, do we? Aanenson: Well let me take that… If you look at all the properties, all the properties are connected together. We’ve seen different scenarios from the developer. This is my first time seeing the single family application that they’ve shown on the site, but the fact that they’re similarly zoned, even at that, if they came in and put the zoning in place, it’s... Sacchet: So it’s compatible from that angle. Aanenson: And again, we believe it’s responsible to provide access to these other properties. Sacchet: Right, because we do that across the whole city I mean this is not an isolated case. Aanenson: That’s correct. And we’ll look at that. We’re happy to work with them on flexibility. Wherever they want to tie in, they’ve shown us a drop, loop road off of that collector Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 30 road, it can be tied in numerous ways. It could be a secondary access if it becomes a commercial development that really we feel strongly… McDonald: Mr. Chairman. Sacchet: Yes Jerry. McDonald: Just a question for staff. This issue came up last week at the City Council meeting. My understanding was that the direction that you got was to work with the property owners and that that’s why the road at this point stops at the property line to give you an opportunity to come up with the alternatives as to how this is going to interconnect, isn’t that right? Aanenson: Correct. McDonald: So this is really an issue that you all are currently working with. Aanenson: Correct. At this point it stops at their, it can be worked into the future plan and we’re not prohibiting tying it down. There’s flexibility… McDonald: So the position of that road at this point does not affect our decision tonight. Aanenson: The position of the road on? McDonald: The one to the northeast that they, Town and Country’s actually realigned a little bit. Generous: As far as going across MnDot’s property. Aanenson: Where it goes from there, there’s flexibility in that. How that ties into the Fox parcel. Generous: Or into the east/west collector. McDonald: Well then if you haven’t settled the connect the dots issue, we have. Aanenson: You never do when you stub a road to at the property. You have to take it to the terminus. This has come out on numerous subdivisions, site plans. You do the best you can and based on the information they’ve given us, the information of the developer, we’ve got a responsibility… Go back to the AUAR. This is the segment we’re talking about through here and we’ve seen numerous iterations through here, including a drop road, something that would tie through so this road could swing into that. Wherever that works out where there is commercial, residential, I mean there’s flexibility but yeah, our job now and our obligation to provide that stub street as we would, these people have stubbed you know, as Degler, just as on Pioneer Pass comes in, we’re asking them to provide an access here so they can get access to this property. This developer is developing south of this wetland. The creek area. They are still providing right-of-way for this project. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 31 McDonald: Okay, well that’s my question. At this point where the stub is at doesn’t affect our approval of the PUD at this point then. Aanenson: Of this PUD? McDonald: Right. The one for. Aanenson: Yes, it does. McDonald: Okay, then now I’m confused. If we approve the PUD and the road changes, what happens to the developer? We just approved something that may have to change. Aanenson: I don’t believe this would change. What we’re saying is once it gets to this point, it can be worked into their plans when it comes in. We’re willing to work with them. That was the issue that was brought up at the council on Monday. Wherever that ends up. McDonald: Right, and as I understood at the council, all of that is pretty much a black box at this point and you’re supposed to fill in the points working with all the owners to come up with an agreeable solution. Aanenson: Correct. McDonald: Okay. So if we approve the area tonight with the road where it’s at, is that going to work with the possible scenarios that you know you’ve been. Aanenson: The staff’s position is yes. McDonald: Okay. Aanenson: Their position, no. Sacchet: We got that. McDonald: Okay. And the developer understands. Sacchet: The public hearing’s still open. You’ll get a chance to talk. Aanenson: Just so you know, this debate’s been going on for a couple of years. McDonald: Yeah I know. Aanenson: So between the staff and the… Sacchet: Alright, the public hearing is still open. I see some people itching to get up. If you want to come forward. State your name and address please for the record and pull that microphone towards you please. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 32 Jeff Fox: My name is Jeff Fox representing the Fox Family and the 54 acres that abuts up south to the Jeurissen parcel here and I have three things that come up. If this project’s not going anywhere but grading tonight, what’s the hurry to make a decision when we don’t have the defined area involved as far as the north collector street and where this is going to come in on the east/west collector. That’s still somewhat open. As we were told by I think 2 or 3 council members, I think it was 2 that I can say that the council members told us that staff was supposed to work with us to come up with a reasonable solution that would benefit to all parties involved, and that’s the concern to me. I agree with you that it’s a tree preservation area. I don’t know how many people have been out from the city itself. I’ve spent numerous hours out there and we’re in the process right now of evaluating each and every tree within there. There’s a fair amount of that that’s called grub in there, and a lot of that with dead trees in that area. There are a lot of mature oak trees too, and I’m well aware of that. I want to respect that issue, but I think we need to take into consideration how much impact are we talking about. Are we talking about taking our 2 or 3 here? Whether we’re taking out a clump on the hill. To where they’re wanting to grade the land to begin with. I’m just questioning are we making a decision on something that needs to be made at this time as long as there’s no project moving forward as far as development purposes. And as far as that road to the south, it was never, or the road to the north, it was never brought to our attention. We found that through reading the propaganda, or the information to the city of Chanhassen in their site. Nor were we brought to our attention, addressed to the Fox family or the development area we’re talking about did the City ever contact us to discuss this issue. Sacchet: Let me ask you a question. I want to make sure I understand clearly what your key point is and when you’re talking about the trees, are you referring to like a particular option that needed to be further explored or can you be more specific please? Jeff Fox: Correct. There was a comment, I mean there was a proposal from Jim Benshoof, our representative, traffic engineer who was here tonight with an alternative, a loop road cutting the corner of our tree area there. Of the tree preservation area. And that was what I was talking about there. I would like to let Rick talk more about elevations because I think you’ll find that the elevation difference from that location to where the corner is cut, to the elevation where the road stops, is I think a 10 foot difference. Now there is some grade drop but it’s not as substantial. Not near as substantial as the rise that’s coming up to this interchange, nor is it from coming from the people up to this interchange. Sacchet: So your point is that the loop option should be further explored? Jeff Fox: I’m not, I want you to understand something, I’m just looking at trying to work with staff, with the idea that we look at these options. That has never been addressed. Never been talked to us about. We have talked about different alternative layouts of our land. We’re kind of held back right now because we’re trying to go different guiding due to the fact that the negative impact of having all this traffic brought onto our property. When Jim was bringing these numbers up, I think he was dealing with thinking it was 119 units. We weren’t aware it’s 146 units, so it’s actually more traffic than the numbers we’re talking about. I mean we just don’t feel single or medium density, seeing the additional traffic up and above the 12,200 cars they Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 33 expected for that area to begin with, that’s going to be beneficial. I mean that’s got to be a negative impact on the residents… Sacchet: So let me clarify also that, are you concerned about the traffic volume or are you concerned about just having a road in the first place? What’s your main concern? Jeff Fox: Well I think there’s a couple things. We’re trying to mitigate the amount of traffic on the east/west collector. Trying to reduce it because right now the traffic counts are higher than what’s on Lyman today based on the very easterly portion of it. Okay, so we’re trying to mitigate that as one issue, and we’re trying to keep some of the value that’s left in that parcel by not cutting it into another piece right now. Our piece is carrying a lot of the east/west collector road. I think the largest percentage of the east/west collector road goes across the Fox property to start with. Sacchet: So, what I also hear you say is that you like to… Jeff Fox: …work on these issues in advance instead of finding them out through the minutes or say that we’ve been looked at these because I’d just like to believe that there’s better, a possible options and then when I hear tonight that they’re 2 to 3 years away before building in there, I’m going what’s another month or so to work this out or 2 months because right now I think there’s a market study coming that might have some impacts to what’s going to take place in this 2005 area. And it might have some say where the road needs to go. It might have some say on what size the road needs to be in certain areas. Sacchet: Yeah, and that’s something we struggle with all the time. I mean we can’t prescribe the time line to particular developer. Just as we can’t tell you have to develop now, we can’t tell the other guy he has to wait until you come around. And working together quite often involves not being of the same opinion so then the challenge of working together is that we bridge that and I’d certainly like to encourage everybody to work together, especially when you’re not of the same opinion because that’s when it’s needed. But that’s getting to comments and, did you want to add anything else today? Jeff Fox: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Does staff want to make a comment to any of this? That wasn’t a comment. McDonald: You got our attention now. Sacchet: Woke everybody up. Aanenson: We had a dialogue about the road connection. We understand that the two property owners do not want any connection to their property. On this side, the north side…I guess our position is we want to try to work those out. Just be clear that the 2005 study, excuse me the commercial study that we’re expecting to get back this spring, that is not going to be a…to answer all the questions. There’s a long, lengthy process of public dialogue that’s going to Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 34 happen. It may take a year or two. To kind of tie, there’s an element or framework part of the comprehensive plan that we want to take up with the community too, so we’re not going to rezone anything based on that information within the next couple months. It might be a year… so I don’t know what this developer’s timeframe is… They want to rezone something. What I can do is the people that are interested…and ready to move forward now, providing them the option that, for development. We did explore those in detail. I believe we communicated the intent to try to tie those in and tried to work to the best… And again, they have the right to pursue…so everybody works together and then the other property that everybody work, we work to locate a park on the property which there’s a little bit of angst but we have…park located down there. Neighborhood park. Worked on all the other connections…trying to make so everybody ties together so. Sacchet: One concern that this raises for me, and there are a couple of places in the city where we run into a dead end street that was never acknowledged from the other side. What, I mean what’s the likely, what’s the possibility of something like that happening? I mean I know they’re planning a stub there and a place, that makes sense for this development. That makes sense in terms of the overall flow that we perceive at this point for this area. Is there a possibility then of on the other site, a project comes along and says well we’re not connecting to this because it doesn’t fit for us? Aanenson: That’s our job to look at that and your job is to make a recommendation to the City Council of connecting those. I mean that is our number one issue that we face when we bring in a project, connecting neighborhoods. Sacchet: Absolutely. Aanenson: …for example the construction access and the like, there might be some people that want to go to a use that’s desirable that’s on that property to the north…so it swings both ways. There’s advantages…and that’s the kind of balance. Sacchet: Alright, thanks Kate. Aanenson: Certainly we haven’t ruled out trying to work with them. Sacchet: And I would certainly think that staff tries to work with everybody. Aanenson: Right, and the complexity is, this is the best site we believe for the road. The complexity is we’re also working with…wooded wetland replacement, which is unique. And MnDot’s obligated…so we’ve kind of have to seize that opportunity while we’re working through that permitting process while that’s open, so we have to resolve those issues in a timely manner too so we don’t lose that option. To have a one way in and one way out, even on that other circulation, it’s still a long one way in and one way out. It’s certainly the best desired… Sacchet: Alright. I saw somebody else wanted to come up. Actually two other people. Which one goes first is the question. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 35 Jim Benshoof: Chairman, members of the commission. Again Jim Benshoof. Just a couple of brief points. I think I heard you Mr. Chair express concern about, oh about long dead end streets or interconnecting neighborhoods, Kate as well. Just want to say, and I firmly agree that long dead end streets are not good, and not for public safety. For use by residents in the neighborhood. I agree with that. I agree with the principle of interconnecting neighborhoods. I want to make that clear. But I also, I’d like to also really make clear for you that this, the idea of this connection is not simply call it a neighborhood street interconnection. This level of traffic that would be using this street, to and from the Liberty Creekside development, is higher than what call it a normal neighborhood interconnecting local street would carry, and I just think important because with it’s proximity to Powers, to the 312 interchange, I’m quite certain that that’s going to carry the bulk of the traffic. 60-70 percent of the traffic in and out you know of this neighborhood, and so it would just pose a burden on this Fox property, call it greater than what would normally be associated with neighborhood interconnecting streets. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Sacchet: Please. Aanenson: If this was to become a commercial center, and all that property to the south was all commercial, would your premise change? Jim Benshoof: It would be, I would look at it differently, indeed. Sacchet: It would be desirable at that point. Jim Benshoof: It’s the relationship of such a street and the use of the street to… Aanenson: …commercial. Sacchet: Yeah, appreciate it. Good evening. Rick Dorsey: Good evening. My name’s Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard. Couple comments I want to make. First, we have every intention of trying to put together the best development possible for our properties. Our property represents 110 acres between the Fox’s and our own. It’s a very significant parcel and it’s location has created difficulties for us how to look at it. It is preliminary guided as low density residential. That probably came about because of the property that my family owns on it. Not a normal property. Again I’ll point out that you probably didn’t know that, or know this property existed on that property. You know we’re looking at tremendous cost to us because this property will probably be lost. It’s a 2 ½ to 3 million dollar home. Why will it be lost? Because the traffic is changing what can actually be done with the property. 12.200 cars is not a neighborhood parkway coming through. It’s as much or more traffic than is on Lyman. I guess you call it a A minor collector. Not collector, excuse me arterial. That’s a county road. This is a neighborhood. Now the big question that comes into play is the whole process. No, we haven’t been communicated with. No one has ever called me up to talk about anything. I don’t believe the Fox’s have been called up to be included in discussions. We’ve not talked with Town and Country from them calling us up, Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 36 other than meeting them at meetings. It does have an impact and we’re trying to work with it. The first thing we’ve got to do is try and protect what we have. 12,000 cars is a lot of cars. We’ve talked about with staff and about an idea, and that’s what it is. Right at this point you know I hear staff saying, or Kate saying you know we’d like to see commercial. Well we’re looking at what the options are when you have Lyman Boulevard with 12,000 cars, Powers with 14,000 cars, the east/west collector at 12,000 cars. You know you’ve got to look at some other alternatives. We’re open to trying to do something. Right at this point we can’t do commercial because the city won’t look at it, so it’s not that we’re holding things up until the study comes back, it won’t even be considered. We’ve put forth time and a plan to give an idea of what we’re looking at. This isn’t to say that this is what it will be. But if you look at it, we’re looking at contributing substantial amounts of land to make park area within the development. Make it a. Sacchet: Can you explain… Rick Dorsey: Pardon me? Sacchet: Do you mind explaining the colors on your. Rick Dorsey: Well what we initially looked at, until we get the study back we don’t know what possibilities are there but it’d be a mixed use type development. The initial plan was to focus on some sort of commercial in this area. But at this time. Sacchet: The red would be the commercial? Rick Dorsey: Well possibly. Sacchet: Well concept. Understood. This is dreaming. It’s brainstorming. Rick Dorsey: Yep, it’s dreaming. Exactly. Could be more of it. Could be the whole thing. We don’t know yet until we get information back, but trying to do something that’s balanced. That has possibilities, we put this together to look at road use and issues. These areas would be residential in this scenario, and the idea was that it’s an internal parkway with walking paths through the whole thing. Our goal was to minimize road traffic through it, and in doing so make it an area where people could go from any one of these points without crossing traffic, to the point of installing a bridge where water would go underneath it because the traffic’s so heavy and you can’t get across. That basically goes to the point of before this road was here, this was one big parcel. With the road here of 12,000 cars, it doesn’t connect neighborhoods. It disconnects them. And so we’ve been looking at, if we have to go with the residential ways to connect it back up. Now to make any of this work requires higher density. We don’t want to look at projects like townhome projects. There’s a lot of them in the area. We would think we’d have to go vertical somehow to do it. Incorporate commercial to try to bring people to vertical developments because there aren’t any in Chanhassen. You know there’s a lot of factors that are there, but at this point in time we can’t move forward. Now the idea of a road coming through, you know if this was mixed use, sure it could work. However, if it ends up being residential, again the traffic further breaks up any theme we’re trying to create with this and create continuity of neighborhoods. Now we understand that they do need to have some sort of access. We’d like Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 37 to work with them. We truly would like to sit down and talk to them and work through and not have to throw ideas out for them. We’re not looking at having to generate, solve all their problems, which is their solving their problem creates a problem for us. And I do understand that you know yes, you do have to go forward and figure something out to provide access. This property was landlocked originally and you know whether the south is an issue or not, we don’t know. You know something that could be revisited as an option, just so we know all the options. The other thing that comes into play is really on this site we believe that there’s going to be a problem with traffic and confusion and with traffic coming out here, coming up here and the plan that is different again from what was approved by City Council for design showed this north collector going here. It’s looking like from the way they stopped it now, and my understanding is last week at the meeting they said it’s flexible, but that it was going to come around here and up this way. That creates two intersections. We believe it, as Jim was mentioning, perhaps an alignment more straight would create a four way intersection and eliminate some of the problems that are there. Our goal in doing that would be to mitigate some of the traffic. So somebody wanting to do to downtown to shop, instead of coming up here and out here or coming out through here, this neighborhood, there’s an option. Maybe coming up here and up, or up here to Audubon and up. So we’d like to talk about these options and the impact that they have on our property as well. We’re not first to the table. My property’s in ag preserve. I might, all this money I’m spending right now might be totally worthless, but I’m trying to. Larson: Where is the property that you showed us on this map? Rick Dorsey: Right here. And you know, I mean with the guidance that was there, you know low density, you know with the traffic, no it probably doesn’t make sense. Medium density, if you’re having a house like this with medium density around it, my property is worthless. So we’re looking at trying to come up with solutions with what’s being dealt to us. And we would like to work together on this. The neighborhoods, they can put in what they want. We’re not asking that but in this scenario here, these are just outlining off of, this would be the north collector and there’s some issues as far as where that can line up on Lyman and we’ve hired Mr. Benshoof’s company to help us determine that and there are very limited locations where that can access. And it appears that they have to be between the creek and actually my property line to meet sight line standards. We feel that that is a big issue. It has an impact on this development as well because of where the traffic will go to site that, before we take an move on. It can have an impact if we can work out something here where this is a more straight alignment coming up, and we’ve been told well that it’s too steep. Well, you know this all here where this is being built is way steeper. Believe me. And cutting into the side of the hill here could be a possibility to tie that up. Perhaps this is 2 roads coming out. I don’t know. Another different solution possibly if we could sit down and talk about them. Sacchet: Yes, it’s tricky. I mean we’ve got to be careful that we don’t plan somebody else’s stuff. I mean that’s what your concerned in your case of the impact, so you’ve got to be careful also on how far you go with that. Rick Dorsey: Yeah, and we’ve, I mean we want to have some flexibility to try and put some sort of a project together. Our belief is that this property, because of this intersection for the city is probably the most valuable as far as tax base to the city. We do believe that commercial is Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 38 probably the best use for it. That’s something yet to be determined whether the city wants to do it or not. Sacchet: Or mixed, yeah. Rick Dorsey: You know wants to do it, but if it is that type of use, it can be a great possibility. Short of doing that, I’ve got to be on the defensive and hope you can appreciate that. 12,000 cars going by this house is not anything I’m looking forward to. The possibilities of commercial, if the city would come forth and say hey it’s not just a possibility, we’ll do it. Our attitude would be different. But we’re not faced with that option yet. We have to wait until the information comes forth and maybe 2 years down the road to find this out. So what we’re looking at is basically to look at a couple of key things. Number one is, I think there has to be a definitive location on Lyman determined so we know where the north collector’s going to go and how it’s going to interact with this east/west road. And if it has to be over here somewhere, should these two line up or should they be separated, because that is an issue traffic wise. And I mean that’s number one. Number two is just looking at it from the standpoint of the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan states that it’s got policies in place to minimize environmental and traffic impacts on neighborhoods. My neighborhood’s being impacted. My property’s being impacted. Now there are ways to mitigate this traffic and to take it through design right now to take and try to move it out to the arterials where it belongs. Why is it coming through the east/west collector? Because the City has decided they don’t want to spend money at this time to upgrade Audubon and Lyman. If those were upgraded according to the AUAR, this collector wouldn’t have to be there right now. Sometime in the future, but not right now. So there’s certainly things that can be looked at, discussed. We would like to take some time now to do it and sit down with the other property owners and work through you know what can work. We’re willing to compromise. I think we’ve already compromised in looking at having 12,000 cars come through when it didn’t have to be that way necessarily. So yes, we would like to work with everybody involved. We would like to see everybody involved. Have great developments because it benefits everybody. And to end there, you know I would ask that the commission recognize that we have to look at the whole plan since we’re looking at this as a whole area. Not cherry pick and pull out little pieces of it and put it together. I agree with Commissioner McDonald. You know this area, we don’t know it’s commercial yet. If the City would tell us it’s commercial, you know we can move forward. Until such time, or at least give us some guidance saying this is what we believe. This is the direction, you know we support you. Not we’re going to wait and you know we sit there and it comes through and then we’re stuck having to try and figure it out. That’s what we ask is fairness. Sacchet: Appreciate your comments. Thank you very much. Undestad: Can I ask you one question? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Mark. Undestad: What’s the green area at the bottom? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 39 Rick Dorsey: That’s the tree preserve that we’ve all been talking about. The hill of trees. And in actuality. Undestad: The yellow. The yellow right at the edge of the trees there. Rick Dorsey: Well potentially a district, be it residential, whatever. A quadrant that’s looking to how you’d service those roads. Undestad: How close is your tree line there to what’s actually out there? Rick Dorsey: I don’t understand your question. Undestad: Where you’re showing your green, your dark green line comes through the yellow there. Rick Dorsey: Ask the question again please. Undestad: I’m just trying to get an idea of coming up from the street below. Rick Dorsey: From down here? Undestad: Yep. Where they want to send it up. Rick Dorsey: Yeah. There’s no trees past the Fox property line. Undestad: Now I’m looking over to your. Rick Dorsey: This way? Sacchet: To the yellow. Undestad: Other way. Rick Dorsey: This way? Undestad: Yeah, now follow your tree line. Just come down. Rick Dorsey: Over here? Undestad: Yep, all the way down to there, yep. Rick Dorsey: Well that’s what Jeff was talking about. There’s actually a few isolated trees of any consequence that are out in those areas. The question would be is, are they actually part of the preserve and what constitutes a preserve area. Certainly a few trees here and there, I mean trees are being taken out on this project and we understand that it’s a preserve area and the Fox’s are respecting that and at the same time we’ve got to work and look and see what can be done to Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 40 make the best use of the property without destroying it so, I mean that’s what we are looking at. We’ve very conscious of it. My property’s been in the ag preserve since 1982. At the request of the City we did take it out. You know we are wanting to work with everybody. We’re not trying to hold everything up, but I hope you can appreciate that we have significant economic value there that we do need to protect. Sacchet: Definitely, thank you very much sir. Just two questions or clarification from staff. That east/west collector, I mean that was one of the major elements in the AUAR study. I think that is a firm decision. I mean that’s. Aanenson: Correct, and there was numerous meetings with the property owners and different iterations on that drawing. Sacchet: So that’s not a discussion point at this point. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: That’s been discussed a year or more ago. Aanenson: The council has ordered the plans and specs. Sacchet: Then in terms of the impact, I mean of course we want to look at the overall picture but then from the overall picture we work into the more details. And we’re quite into details with this particular application in front of us. And so we already went through these steps to my understanding, that at this point to some extent are being questioned. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. And that I mean these discussions have been going on for quite a while. Okay. Alright. Public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to add anything more to this. Seeing nobody getting up, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments. And at some point a vote. Debbie, are you ready? Larson: I’ll jump in. Sacchet: Go ahead. Larson: Okay. Do you have, we’ve got some you know the last thing that you showed us Mr. Dorsey, I’m just you know looking at that and I’m wondering you know, you’ve got a gorgeous property there. Beautiful home. Is the plan to put more large homes and just a few? I mean I guess I’m a little confused as to what the huge concern is. Rick Dorsey: To answer your question, we don’t know. You know the reason why we don’t know, first of all at this point in time, with the traffic that’s coming through, we don’t find it feasible to put in large homes. Would you want to build a large home on a highway? No. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 41 Larson: I grew up in LA. They do it all the time. Really big homes. Rick Dorsey: Well in the Twin Cities that’s less desirable if you have the option. Larson: Yeah, I understand that. Rick Dorsey: Okay. So you know that takes it out of the picture somewhat, and we recognize that now. The other options that are there in place today would be medium density. Again what happens there, you know there’s issues that are there. We still have busy roads. You have to give somebody a reason even with multi family to want to live when they have other options. There can be a thousand other townhomes around us that are not on a busy road, or as busy of a road. So from our perspective in looking at it, marketing times, if we were to bring them on the market today and compete with these others, same price point, you wouldn’t sell them probably. You have to provide some other reason for them to want to be there. Sacchet: Got to be optimistic. Rick Dorsey: Well I’m being realistic. I’m being realistic. Sacchet: Understand. You’re protecting your interest. Rick Dorsey: Well I’m being realistic. I’m optimistic, yes I think it can be a great development but things can happen… Sacchet: Let’s try to stick with the project. Yeah, let’s stick with the project. Rick Dorsey: Well to finish your question. Larson: Yeah. Rick Dorsey: So do I see in the future big home there? With 12,000 cars, no. Larson: Or what do you see? I mean. Rick Dorsey: What do I see? If, right at this point, and this is based on market. People coming to us saying we’d like to build something there. We’re seeing more demand for commercial use. No doubt about it. Because of the interchange there. The distance from coming onto 312 from Eden Prairie, all the way out to Chaska, there will be no other sizeable parcels of land available, and they see the demographics. Well, that’s a possibility but it’s up to you to tell us. Until such time we can’t do that. We only have the opportunity to do single family or multi family. Sacchet: I think we understand your situation. Thank you very much. Appreciate you clarifying that but let’s keep it to the commission at this point so we try to get this. Larson: Okay, I’m done. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 42 Sacchet: It’s alright, keep going. Larson: I’ll stop. Sacchet: I don’t want to cut you off. You can keep going. Larson: No, no, that was it. Sacchet: Mark. Undestad: I’d just you know one comment on that. Again the issues on, it looks to me like there would be some options in there. And when these developments come through, these roads have to go somewhere. They all do. And I think to go through this they try to find an area that okay, this makes the most sense. I think on their parcels there, that there probably is some more options to tighten up that radius if for some reason they just said you know we just don’t want it coming in here. But that’s the process that staff has to work out with the remaining land owners. It’s okay, where is this road going to go? It’s going to go somewhere. But exactly where is it going to go? That’s what they still need to work out. Sacchet: And there are access points defined. I mean that’s where we started this whole thing with. There was an east and a west access point that has to be connected. Aanenson: Just to be clear, since you met last we have made that determination and we’ve gone through those iterations. We do believe this is the best so, again…we believe is the best. Sacchet: So there’s flexibility in that but in general the concept is very worked out. Aanenson: Correct. Undestad: So again coming back to their project in front of us, the issue of the road ending where it ends. Sacchet: Is a given at this point. Undestad: Is a given. That’s where it’s going to be and then it’s still to be determined which way it’s going to go. Aanenson: Exactly. Undestad: You know where you’d like to see it. They know where they’d like to see it. That still has to get worked out. Sacchet: Okay. Anything else Mark? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 43 Undestad: Just back to the, do you have something on that, you know the different paint jobs for signs or something out there. It didn’t sound like you had anything other than this is what we’re doing up the road. Sacchet: That’s a tricky one, that one. I mean how much can we on one hand tell them what they have to do but on the other hand it is a PUD with the idea that we do have a say in this. So there is a give and take so I think we’re within our rights to push that issue. Dan. Keefe: Well I think there’s a number of things that I liked from this project. Definitely I think that they’ve added a lot of trees in the landscaping too and I think they’ve gone way over the minimums that are required, which I think is terrific. I think I’m happy that they also moved forward adjusting that retaining walls from 30 foot high one, four down to the lower level and certain tiering them. I’m also pleased with the alignment of the trails. Trail going along the Bluff Creek corridor and how the sidewalks tie into the trail. I think that’s very positive. I agree that in terms of articulation, as much as you can in regards to the buildings, if we can enhance that articulation and provide as much variety as possible with…limited somewhat given the price points. To be able to articulate and add a lot of architectural flavor to it but I would recommend the developer look at that a little bit more. And then last thing in regards to the road, I mean you know we’ve gone through this question a number of times and I’m in support of connecting neighborhoods. I think it’s consistent with our comprehensive plan to connect neighborhoods. I trust that staff has looked at the different options and where the best location of the road is in terms of this particular neighborhood. How it goes into the other neighborhood, how it traverses through the other neighborhood, really remains to be seen but in terms of where it stubs in, stubs out of this particular property, it seems to be appropriate from my standpoint. I’m in support of this project. Sacchet: Okay. Jerry. McDonald: Well let me just say I’m a little conflicted. First of all, I’d like to address what I consider to be a non-issue that we spent a lot of time on and that’s the roads as to where they go. Staff has been mandated to take care of the roads. We have entry points and exit points, and it’s up to them to connect it. I think the developer’s well aware of the controversy of the roads. You know he’s made a commitment for the stub. If something doesn’t happen, that’s his risk. I don’t see those as being issues in our decision. What’s before us. Having said that, I would feel more comfortable if this matter were tabled, and the reason I would feel more comfortable if it were tabled is that I would like more assurances about the design. I heard what the developer said. We have gone through a lot about diversity of neighborhoods and uniqueness of neighborhoods and I guess I just do not feel comfortable that that’s what I’m getting here. I mean I’m sorry but that’s the way I feel and again, you know I preference all of that with I have the greatest respect for the developer of this project. I really wouldn’t want to see anybody else in there but I just feel let down on this issue, and I mean based upon that, I have a problem supporting voting for this development. That’s why I would prefer to see it tabled and I would prefer, you know we did get some commitment from the developer to work with staff to do something about the schemes. I would like to see some more time spent doing that because once we make the commitment to approve this, that’s it. We never see it again and you know one of the things that the Planning Commission needs to look at is, we have made determinations about what our Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 44 guidelines are as far as making approvals and I’m afraid that I just do not feel that that guideline, that I have enough assurances on that. So my position, you know what I will recommend whenever he gets to it is, I’ll make a motion to table because I really feel that this needs to be looked at a little bit more. This is a big issue. And again, this has nothing to do with the roads. I want to make that very clear that I do not feel that that is an issue of this development. I feel staff has been mandated to take care of that, and they are doing that and City Council is on top of that. We spent a lot of time last week at the City Council meeting discussing this road so, and again I don’t want to come across as somewhat of a hypocrite from the standpoint of I do support property rights and I understand what the developers of that property are going through, but we have a developer with property who is ready to go and I think that one of the things that we as a city owe them is a decision on what they ask for. I am saying we need to table it because I am not satisfied with the internals of the development, and that is the reason I cannot support this. So having said that I’ll turn it over to the chairman. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. I do agree to a large extent. I certainly agree that the traffic, the road thing I think has been pretty well cooked. There are questions in terms of the use next to it that I understand is difficult for those adjacent property owners because they don’t quite know if they’re going to go left or right, but that’s a different issue. That’s not tied into this particular development. I do agree with you Jerry that in terms of the diversity of this, it’s not where I’d like to see it. I think it was an issue from the very beginning. I think it was actually the first issue when even though it was in the discussion stage when this came in that we pointed out well, can we do some diversity from what’s happening across the hill. I do acknowledge you made an effort. You come up with the color palettes. With the additional touches on it. I think that’s very commendable. Is it enough? I mean we’re still basically following cookie cutter option with a little extra glazing on it. I’m not sure whether this is a reason to table and hold it up though. I’ve got to be honest about that. It’s certainly not to my satisfaction. It’s not where I’d like to see it, and I’m struggling because if it were not a PUD I would say we’re out of our league by getting involved with that because that’s the developer’s right to do it how they want to do it and it’s not up to us as the governing body as the city to come in and say you have to do it this and that. We can make suggestions say put a cupola there and the maybe they do. But then on the other hand what I hear you say Jerry, if we at this point say work with staff, chances are not much is going to happen because they’ve already worked on it. Let’s face it. I mean I would assume from their angle they went as far as they’re comfortable going with the diversity, and within the price point, what you brought up Dan. I think something we need to consider too, and they do have the formula that they’re successful with, so we can’t expect them to deviate from their success formula. How they make their living, right? So I’m a little conflicted there exactly how do we resolve that. I don’t know whether maybe. McDonald: Well I think Mr. Chairman, I mean the thing that I’m looking for is that, again we’re not trying to ram a design down anyone’s throat. We’ve been through this before, but we’ve been through it at Liberty at Bluff Creek. We had problems there with the way that it was, the colors. The schemes. The facades and everything. The only leverage we have to give to city staff is to say table the issue. We’re not going to vote on it and send it up. Without that we have no leverage and staff has no leverage, and my concern is again, working with this developer that has worked before. They are willing to work with you. I don’t think I’m asking a lot to let’s get a little bit of uniqueness. If it’s color. If it’s façade changes. We’ve been through this before Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 45 and they did come through but the only way we have any leverage is to get it back to staff and let them say, we’ve got to get this fixed and then we can resubmit it. That’s the only thing I guess I’m looking at is, without that you’re right. It goes forward and I don’t think it will ever be discussed again. Sacchet: So let me, go ahead. Keefe: I’ve got a question to ask Jerry. You know there are development design standards that are laid out for this particular PUD, right? Liberty at Creekside development standards. They’re listed on page 5, and I guess the only question is, did they not meet the building materials and design standards as stated in here? McDonald: It’s the aesthetics. It’s the aesthetics. It’s not the materials. It’s the look and the feel of it, and that’s part of, whenever we say we want unique neighborhoods, that’s… Keefe: What one person likes, is totally different what somebody else likes. McDonald: And again, I am not saying that we’re doing anything with design. We’ve had this discussion before. We had it about Liberty on Bluff Creek and what we agreed on is, we’re not trying to design houses. What we’re trying to get is a feel that is unique. Well we turned it over to staff before. They came back. They worked on it. They got something unique. At that point they made a decision that it works. That’s what we want and that’s what I’m saying again is, give it back to staff but you need to give them some leverage. Sacchet: That’s a good point, but this area that I’m a little fuzzy and I ask you first Jerry since you bring the idea, and then maybe also address to staff. I mean we’ve given them this direction to bring in diversity. They come with five color schemes. They come with additional materials. Additional sidings, what have you. Rock. Brick and so forth. Gables. I don’t know how far they went with it. Kevin Clark: We changed elevations. We came with multiple… Sacchet: So my question to you Jerry is, what more? Keefe: We need to be very specific. Sacchet: I mean what more can, let’s say we table this. What more can they bring to us without taking the whole apart, which I don’t think we can ask them to come with a you know. Keefe: …materials. McDonald: Well I guess what I’m saying in all this is, I asked the question of staff you know and I do not get the feeling that they’re satisfied with this. That they feel there is some more that could be done. Sacchet: So let’s ask staff. What more could be done? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 46 Aanenson: If you go back to what we approved for final plat in the Liberty, there’s actually a plan. There’s no two buildings that sit next to each other with the same color palette and that was approved as a part of it, and I believe Shawn…here tonight, so there’s different color stone, brick. There’s no material theme that, buildings that are next to each other so within that, not only in that but we also mix up the diversity. Now because of the slopes and the grades, we have more similar products on Creekside, but we would do the same thing here, which would be no similar color product, so and that’s approved with the final plat. The color schemes so when they come in for the building permit, so there’s no, yes. If you’re saying the concern is this is going to look like the other one. That I can’t do anything about. But within the product itself there’s diversity so when you’re looking at it it’s not all the same look, color, feel within the product. McDonald: Well that’s not what I heard the applicant say because the question was asked about the colors and the way all this goes together, and the particular product line. I’m not sure if it’s. Keefe: See if they can show us something. They weren’t able to use their slide show… Undestad: Is that the same paint colors that they used on the other one that’s used on this one? Sacchet: If we can find something specific that can be added, that’d be good but without it. Aanenson: Not every one of these units are going to be the same materials. So some of these will be brick. This one is showing brick. So the one that we just approved on last Monday night, there’s some of these are going to be the boulders. They all have different color palettes so there’s not the same look. Now your question I believe is mixing it up within each unit. That’s more. Larson: Well no, not with each one unit. With each two. I mean like on this one, a logical split would be between the two. I mean in the four. Kevin Clark: I think what we’re saying is that what we went to the extent is we offer what we have three elevations that we’re doing. Three different. Sacchet: Designs of the. Kevin Clark: Architectural designs, and between those different designs, whether it’s, I’m at a loss now for the different names but the different architectural looks of these buildings, we’ve set that color palette for those because it just doesn’t look good on a streetscape to create a building that has that alternating color. Undestad: Are they the same color palettes on this as on? Kevin Clark: We would be implementing the same color palette. Undestad: So all the paint colors, everything is the same. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 47 Kevin Clark: But within diversity within the neighborhood. Now I’m saying we could probably go back and supplement. Maybe we could look at other, adding some other ones. Adding some others to supplement this. Aanenson: Want to clarify again just to make sure we’re all on the same page. So within this project itself, there’s different façade treatments, so that’s one variety. There’s three. Kevin Clark: They’re actually, with this, on that elevation, with that look of building, there will be a minimum of three different color scenarios that can happen. But then there are additional, two additional elevations that also have diversity. Aanenson: So there’s color diversity and there’s architectural. Kevin Clark: Architectural diversity. Larson: But this isn’t the one that troubles me. It’s the other one that looks like a row house. It’s the long, the 8 units. Kevin Clark: Well it is. It’s a three story. Shawn Siders: It’s intended to be row houses. Larson: And that one has the colors on it but the picture I have doesn’t. Aanenson: Right, but there’s also different color palettes for each of those too… Kevin Clark: Correct, and that’s what lays out is within this one. Larson: Okay. Okay, it looks like a motel. Shawn Siders: Commissioner Larson what you have in front of you as well is just an illustrative example of what we often hand out just for, just to show somebody what that particular project looks like, so I apologize for any confusion with that, but that’s kind of why we provided that. Just for illustration. Larson: Alright. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 48 Aanenson: So those are two that we’re looking at, and you’d be approving. And then within that, there’s different architecture detail and the different color detail. So your direction for us is to work with them to give you some other color palettes… McDonald: Well I guess let me ask this question, because I maybe misread a little bit of what you were saying. Are you, I mean we have given you direction as staff that we would like to see diversity, so you go out and you work with developers and you try to come up with that. Is it your position that you feel comfortable enough with this that you feel that you’ve met that requirement and where there’s maybe still some things to do, you can work with this developer and make those changes to get to a point where there is uniqueness within this neighborhood, because I’m not seeing it. I have to be truthful. Now you’re talking about different facades and everything and maybe what it is, it’s just the drawings that you’ve supplied us because those are the same ones that I saw up at Liberty at Bluff Creek. If you’re telling me that’s not really what we’re going to put down here. It’s a little bit different, that’s probably okay. Sacchet: Do you want to address that? McDonald: I’m confused so help me out. Kevin Clark: You know we are proposing the same products that we are doing in Liberty at Bluff Creek. But I think the context that I want to put it in is that, as we work with staff and with the city management, we’ve also worked through a number of issues. Accepting additional fees for the Lyman Boulevard upgrade. $2,400 an acre. Working with staff and creating the trail corridor. We, as I mentioned, working through and dedicating sufficient property as outlots or conservative areas. Improving the mitigation. The landscaping, so there has been give and take, but I guess our position is, that we don’t feel that we could move into this neighborhood and create an entire new line, if that’s what you’re asking me because that’s not feasible. McDonald: No. Sacchet: We understand. Kevin Clark: And I just want to make sure that that’s not the direction you think we can go in, because that’s not going to happen. McDonald: No. No, and I wouldn’t ask that. Aanenson: While Mr. Clark was talking about the plans…which we don’t always get, we did work through, since you met last, we worked through 3 or 4 different designs which they showed us again in good faith, some single family. Some other type of products and what would work. Why it wouldn’t work. …why it wouldn’t work and how they eventually ended up back to a certain number of units and a park site, and that’s how we got back there, so there was an exercise of a couple different… McDonald: I guess if you’re going to ask me for a definition of what I’m trying to get at. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 49 Keefe: We are. McDonald: I want to be able to go into this neighborhood and look at a house and then go down to Liberty at Bluff Creek and I can’t find it. I want to see some kind of uniqueness. Sacchet: Distinction. McDonald: Distinction, yeah. That’s a good word. Distinction between the two areas. That’s what I’m searching for, or else at this point now all we’re creating is just one big long development full of townhouses that are all the same. And that’s not what the community here is all about. We do not have these large land masses of houses that are identical as far as developments. You have, you know maybe 40 acres and they’ll go in and do things, and then there’s unique. Well, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Tell me. Keefe: Lundgren Brothers. Aanenson: I think some people…Lundgren Brothers, they have a lot of similar looking. I guess what we looked at too, we looked at the, the other two projects that are coming in. The other two subdivisions that are coming in are single family detached. And as I worked through them before, they’re different applications but they’re very similar in the fact that both of those are predominantly two story homes. I think they’re almost all two story homes. So you’re going to have a lot of two story homes right in the middle. Single family, by the way. Detached homes. Keefe: And that’s between these two. Aanenson: Correct. One will be on the Degler parcel and the other one will be on Mr. Sever Peterson’s parcel, correct. Keefe: What is on the west side of this particular parcel? How does the land go on the west side? Aanenson: I think they showed that… Kevin Clark: That cross section where down into the first tier and then down to the creek. Keefe: …drive along, where are you going to drive and what are you going to see? Kevin Clark: Well coming out of Liberty on Bluff Creek, you’re going to come through the neighborhood, off of Audubon. Onto a divided boulevard. A landscaped boulevard. To that round about where you’re going to head north. Come down into the lowlands or into the creek bed. As you come back out, you’ll have to take a right turn to head now southeast into this neighborhood. They’re going to be separated by what, shy of a quarter of a mile. As you come out of one into the other. This neighborhood elevated further away and sheltered really by the existing topography. I don’t see a continuum of the two neighborhoods, although I respectfully understand what you’re saying and if you’re saying, can you, are you going to be able to, with what we’ve proposed here tonight, walk in and say I don’t see that at the other neighborhood. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 50 No, we haven’t achieved that goal, if that’s your goal. That’s not going to be the case. We are proposing the same, two of the products that are going to be built in the Liberty on Bluff Creek neighborhood. What we do offer is that we’ve done the best job we can over the last year, considering that when we were here last was in August, so in the…working up to there and then working through the design issues. Working through all the other more let’s say structural issues to make it a viable project. Working with the city along with our commitment to the assessments on the collector road, to the ever evolving design of the collector road. To additional requirements that we’ve been, that have been proposed to us that we’ve agreed to, so I think we, along with the city, and along with yourselves, as this project has evolved, have made commitments but can everything change? I think that’s when Mr. Dorsey got up and we talked about a number of things. It’s interesting the evolution. One of the first meetings we had, and we’ve had many, and there’s always been opportunity for contact. He’s right, we’ve never directly called him but we’ve always been available. We’ve had numerous hallway meetings. Numerous meetings that were called here. Always available for contact if there was an issue that needed to be discussed, but I think one of the earliest projects, other than us, Town and Country getting involved with the Bernardi’s, really started at the Fox property with U.S. Homes back at the onset of this when they were looking at different things, so it’s interesting. I only bring that up from an evolutionary standpoint, that everybody’s been working on it and we’ve been making progress and staying into the program to make this thing happen. I guess my point was, at one of the earlier meetings someone said well can somebody general contract this? Is there a possibility for somebody to maybe you know, take this whole thing on? And we all kind of looked at each other and said you know boy, that’d be nice but we understand reality again that none of us really operate in that environment. That world doesn’t exist, so the challenges are that we work our best plan. We represent ourselves honestly and with integrity. We work towards that common goal, and we deal with the pinch points as they come. That happened to us when the collector road morphed. It was initially going across the Peterson property, and then it was decided that it needed to kind of split the baby and go directly north and that modified the whole plan of Liberty on Bluff Creek. I think there have been a number of those things that have occurred throughout the process. Big portion of that was architecture. Architecture. Colors. Highlights on the buildings. Orientation. Anti-monotony. And I think we’ve done a serious and concerted job to meet those obligations. Can we maybe meet them all at every point? No, and I guess that’s what I want to honestly represent to you tonight, that maybe that’s something that Commissioner McDonald we’re not going to be able to completely handle for you this evening. McDonald: Well I appreciate your honesty, and again as I said, I appreciate the fact of your willingness to work with staff. At this point it doesn’t do any good I guess to try to give staff leverage for something they evidently don’t want. Aanenson: No. If you direct us to try to do that, we can do that. I’m not saying that. If you want us to do that, to try to get different products. I think it’s not with the staff. It’s the developer saying, he’s unwilling to change and we had that. We went through the different versions, so I guess the question is really back to the developer if they want to… Sacchet: I’m still not clear. I mean you’re not asking for a different product are you Jerry? McDonald: No. I’m just asking for a different look. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 51 Undestad: That would be a different product. Aanenson: It’d be a different product. Kevin Clark: If you’re asking me to create new elevations, that’s what I’m saying I’m not willing to do. I’m not willing to go out and redesign the product again. Keefe: And commission another architect and… Kevin Clark: No. I just can’t do that. It just doesn’t support that. Aanenson: …Liberty project and with the intent that that would be the next… Keefe: A lot of money to do that. McDonald: No, I’m not asking you to do that. Kevin Clark: Well I guess that’s…exactly what you are asking because maybe we’re, this is a faux disagreement because we really don’t disagree. McDonald: I guess you know one of the problems is that’s always difficult about this is, when we receive things and we have meetings, I mean I would love to have more time to discuss things, and again it could be that I am just not interpreting what I’m seeing correctly. I will give you that, and you’re right. Maybe we don’t, do not have a disagreement. I guess that’s, and you’re right, at this point you can’t convince me one way or the other, and I’m not going to convince you, but I’m not going to ask you to redesign, and if that’s what I’m doing, then of course I’m not going to ask to table it and direct staff to go back to you and do that because that’s not the point of this so. Undestad: Yeah, if you can do it with colors. McDonald: Yeah, I’m perfectly fine with colors. I’m just looking at something that is unique. That’s all I’m asking for and it’s not, I’m not asking for big changes or you know big changes in the elevation or, I mean we did this before with, you came at Liberty at Bluff Creek. I think you had two color schemes and staff asked for more. You provided that. You know, that’s all I’m asking for is something small. I’m not asking for you to redesign new elevations or anything such as that. I’m perfectly happy with a little bit different color scheme. Kevin Clark: To supplement the ones we have so that we can get a greater diversity of that. McDonald: If that’s something that both staff and you feel that you can work with and give it a good effort, then I don’t see any point in holding anything up. Kevin Clark: Okay, thank you. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 52 McDonald: Thank you. Sacchet: Yeah, I’d like to push our discussion this side a little bit. I think we got good input from here. Let’s here a little bit more from you guys. Larson: I sort of scribbled something here on the back. It’s a very minor change, and how do I do this? Can I show these? I mean I don’t know how to go about this but, really basically what I did with my pen is I made, rather than the siding all going sideways like this. Kevin Clark: Do you want me to put it up here? Larson: No, because it’s ugly. Just minor. It’s not a huge deal. It could be the same color or slightly different or just even taking the siding, rather than going straight across, have this one be straight. That way, you know. Just minor so it breaks it up. Sacchet: What Debbie is explaining, just so everybody’s with us is like we’re looking at the back elevation of the, what’s that one called? The Concord. The back of the Concord, which is really a pretty bland view. And what she’s suggesting is that we have some color variation between one or two unit groupings, possibly texture, where the siding, the slats do the different direction, just to give it a little bit of distinction, so it doesn’t just look like this row of chicken coops. Larson: It would not be a change of materials other than a color or a slight difference in how it’s, I don’t know. Aanenson: I’m not opposed to that but I think the back of the building has the least amount of visibility. Kevin Clark: Yeah, we’ve put all our architecture on the front. Aanenson: Especially in this location. Kevin Clark: We put all the stone and brick on the full front. On the sides. Sacchet: You don’t see much of the back. Kevin Clark: You don’t see the back. These are just like your homes. If you go out and look at, go out and stand in the back yard, look at your own home. You don’t have shutters. You have one color. I mean the majority of the houses. Larson: The back of my home is beautiful. Kevin Clark: I can imagine. Larson: It is. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 53 Kevin Clark: But the back of the house, the walkout, the rear part of the house is not where you put the architecture. You’re putting the architecture in the look. Larson; I’m not saying change the architecture. Kevin Clark: No, well it’s all, I guess I include that. Sacchet: It’s part of the architecture. Kevin Clark: Yeah, it’s part of it. It’s something that we’re now, yeah on these planes here where we’re, you’re trying to match of different sides. Larson: I’m not even saying it has to be siding. I was just saying like, if you even had a slight variation in color, it gives a little dimension. I don’t know, but… I don’t care. McDonald: Mr. Chairman. Sacchet: Jerry. McDonald: Would you be willing to accept, I mean you know he’s assured me that he’s willing to work with staff. They’ll come up if there’s something that can be done, they’ll work through it. They’ve made the commitment to do something to add some diversity, whether it’s color or you know some things such as that. Is that good enough do you think to go ahead and go forward with this? The biggest thing. Larson: Yeah. Sacchet: It’s not a need to hold it up. Larson: Of course. I think it’s reasonable to go forward but I’m just saying you know, I mean everything that I put out there, which is really not a dollar difference. It’s just a mind set of how you want it to look, and it’s my mind set versus your’s, and I understand that but I’m not the only one that thinks it’s boring, as you heard. That’s all, and I don’t want you to have to go to any more expense. I really don’t because I think all and all you’ve done a nice job. Sacchet: And you focused on the front elevation which is understandable you know. Larson: But you know, I mean are you assuming that these people are never going to go in their back yards and look back? Sacchet: Oh, which one is mine? Larson: Yeah. I don’t know, I spend an awful lot of time in my back yard but, that’s because I have a beautiful back side to my house. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 54 Kevin Clark: It’s a balancing act, I’m not going to deny that. You’re working with putting the investment where the investment is recognized and where people will appreciate it on the…that’s really observed from yourself if you drive through the neighborhood a year or two from now, you’re going to look at how the neighborhood looks. The streetscape and the massing. And how the colors work together and I guess respectfully commissioners, we rely on design, architectural… Larson: I’m a designer so don’t pull that on me. Kevin Clark: But we’re also sensitive to the market though. Larson: That’s why I’m trying to… Sacchet: Yes, and just to respect your point I mean, and as I said before, we’re not trying to prescribe what you have to do. That’s your business. But on the other hand we’re in a position, we have a responsibility that, and certainly Jerry expressed it very clearly, there’s something that we’d like to see go a little further. So the whole point of the discussion is to try to define what exactly is it because you’ve done a lot. I mean we’ve acknowledged that. We commend you for that. And so the purpose of this discussion is to get a little more clarity. What is possible, because there’s a question. You did a lot already so what more can be done. Now, we came to one possibility, we’ll do something on the back. Now we could obviously debate the values of that. I think we’re pretty close in agreement that we feel this is not a reason to hold you up, but that we put this as work with staff. That it only makes sense if we have some vision with it. Kevin Clark: Right. Sacchet: I mean if it’s, it’s still a bit fuzzy exactly what more can be done. Kevin Clark: I think that’s a reasonable assignment because I guess being prescriptive from your viewpoint is potentially restrictive or counter intuitive to maybe what we’re jointly trying to achieve. McDonald: Yeah, it’s putting us in the role of a designer which we don’t want to be, and all we’re telling you is you know, it’s like, it doesn’t quite look right. Not sure why but do something because you’re the expert, you know. Kevin Clark: Well give us a chance and we’ll have a look. McDonald: Okay, and I’m willing to accept your word and commitment that you’ll work with staff and we’ll give them direction that, to work with you and you know try to do something to fine tune. That’s all we’re asking. Kevin Clark: Understood. Undestad: Asking for different paint colors or… Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 55 McDonald: Yeah, even that. Yeah, something as simple as that would probably alleviate any concern I guess. Sacchet: Couple additional color schemes. I mean what fits? Kevin Clark: We’ll have a few options. We can look at that and see how best you know. I think we want to look at it and say, which one do we achieve the highest and best goal with. McDonald: Of course. I mean that’s why, I can’t give you a detail. Sacchet: That’s not our role. McDonald: That’s right and I don’t want to give you but you guys are pushing me for details but no, that’s not it. Sacchet: As long as we have clarity a little bit and I think we discussed it about as far as we can. McDonald: I think we’re done. It’s time to vote then. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Very lively discussion. We haven’t had one of those in a while. Larson: Oh yeah, because you were in Switzerland. Sacchet: Oh I missed a couple, alright. I remember talking about angles of gables and stuff. Alright, are we ready to make a motion? McDonald: I’m ready. Sacchet: You are ready to make a motion. McDonald: I make a motion Mr. Chairman that the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following four motions. And adopt the attached findings of fact and recommendation and it would be A and B, and then 1 through. Sacchet: A, B, C and D? McDonald: Yeah, 1 through 51 and then C, yeah. A, B, C and D. Sacchet: With all conditions. McDonald: With all conditions and attachments, plus I’d like to add one more that the developer and staff work together on color schemes. Sacchet: Does that go with which one? Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 56 McDonald: C(12). C(12). That staff work with the developer on, how do I want to phrase this? Color schemes? Aanenson: Well I wrote down materials and colors, and diversity. McDonald: What she said, that’s good. Sacchet: Materials, colors and diversity. Distinction. Add distinction. So there’s a motion. Is there a second? Undestad: Second. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Rezoning of the property located within the Liberty at Creekside development with the exception of Outlot A and the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone, from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD - R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Liberty at Creekside, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on Highway 312. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for residential homes. 2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site for final plat approval. 3. The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR. 4. The developer shall designate Common Lots 13 and 18 as Outlots. 5. The developer shall establish a separate outlot(s) for the land within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone. 6. Dedication of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be established over said outlot(s). 7. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be complete within one year of the authorized fill on Liberty on Bluff Creek. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 57 8. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek. 9. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 10. Due to a secondary access through the MnDOT right-of-way (ROW) to the north in the northeast portion of the property, the applicant will be responsible for creating or securing sufficient wetland mitigation for MnDOT that will meet all conditions imposed on MnDOT and will be responsible for any and all fees associated with the redesign of the wetland mitigation areas in MnDOT ROW. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the wetland mitigation plan has been received and approved by the City and MnDOT. 11. The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). 12. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. No alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. 13. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the farmed area south of Bluff Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention shall be paid to areas with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). 14. Alterations appear to be proposed within a mapped FEMA unnumbered A Zone (100-year floodplain). In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within the floodplain. 15. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. 16. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the proposed pond. The EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included the plan. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 58 17. The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all erosion controls and restoration practices. 18. 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. 19. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 20. The applicant shall provide details for curbside inlet control. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation. 21. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls may include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy. 22. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion berms or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet is needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. A detail for the temporary pond outlet shall be included in the plans. Additional temporary sediment basins may be needed or an alternate location may be needed depending upon site conditions during rough grading. 23. The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be turned to the southeast to align with the creek. 24. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is needed and should be shown on the plan. 25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $266,850. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 59 26. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 28. Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both wetland mitigation areas. 29. A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area. This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either side of the access lane. After construction, the access lane shall be restored according to the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’. 30. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 31. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. 32. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated 9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 33. The applicant shall submit a full sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with final plat submittal. 34. A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas. 35. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 36. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and constructed to meet all City specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction. 37. The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection to the Bluff Creek trail through private street B. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 60 38. The developer must coordinate the location and elevation of the western street connection with the Pioneer Pass (Peterson Property) and Degler property developments to the west and northwest. 39. The height and length of retaining walls must be reduced to the maximum extent possible. 40. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan. 41. A building permit is required for any retaining walls four feet high or taller. These walls must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 42. The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the grading plan. 43. Typical sections for each housing style must be shown on the final grading plan. 44. The final grading plan must be 50 scale so that staff can complete a full review of the proposed grading. 45. The developer must verify the invert elevation of the sanitary sewer connection that will be constructed with the 2005 MUSA Improvement Project. 46. The development may not proceed until the Phase II 2005 MUSA utility extension project has been awarded. 47. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges and the SAC charge at the time of building permit. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575.00/unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078.00/unit for watermain. The SAC charge is $1,625.00/unit. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 48. The northern access (currently shown to the Fox property) must be shifted to the east to the MNDOT right-of-way parcel. 49. The Arterial Collector Fee shall be paid with the final plat. The 2006 fee is $2,400/developable acre. 50. The final plans must show the new orientation for Lots 13 and 14, Block 2. 51. The site plan and final grading plan must identify the proposed 10-foot wide bituminous trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for 146 townhouses, plans prepared by Westwood Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 61 Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for each unit on the site for final plat approval. 3. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 5. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4. 7. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 8. Fire apparatus access road and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 9. 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. 10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the private streets. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of sign. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. 12. Staff will work with the developer on materials, colors and diversity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 62 McDonald moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit for alterations within the flood plain and development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated 9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 2. The applicant shall submit a full-sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with final plat submittal. 3. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project. 4. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek. 5. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Thank you very much. We wish you luck. So the idea is that this will be looked at before it goes to council. It goes to council on April 10th depending on where we are with those issues, and I believe our discussion bore out the issues pretty well how we feel about this. PIONEER PASS: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/ INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES); REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, RLM (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES); PRELIMINARY PLAT (PIONEER PASS) CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLCI STREETS (APPROXIMATELY 73 ACRES); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PRIMARY ZONE; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL) AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-09, APPLICANT D.R. HORTON. Planning Commission Meeting – March 21, 2006 63 Sacchet: The applicant has requested this be tabled, so I’d like to ask for a motion to table the Pioneer Pass land use amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variance and wetland alteration permit. McDonald: I will make such a. Generous: To April 4th. Sacchet: To April 4th. It will be tabled til April 4th. McDonald: I make a motion Mr. Chairman that we table until April 4th the proposal for Pioneer Pass which is a request for a comprehensive plan land use amendment from residential medium density and office industrial to residential low density. Sacchet: And everything else that goes with that. McDonald: And everything else that goes with it. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second? Keefe: Second. McDonald moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Pioneer Pass to the Planning Commission meeting on April 4, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 21, 2006 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: 2005 MUSA Improvements, Bid Package #2 (Bluff Creek Boulevard): Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Ad for Bids - Project No. 06-05 REQUESTED ACTION The City Council is requested to approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements. BACKGROUND On February 27, 2006, the City Council received the feasibility study and report for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements, City Project 06-05. On March 13, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing and authorized preparation on plans and specifications. DISCUSSION This project is the second phase of improvements for the 2005 MUSA. The project is necessary to facilitate future development in the 2005 MUSA. Staff has been working with the adjacent property owners to coordinate these improvements. The improvements planned as a part of this project are as follows: 1. Roadway Improvements · Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to approximately 4100 feet to the east. · Bluff Creek Boulevard/Audubon Road turn lanes and traffic signal. 2. Water Main Improvements · Trunk water main along Bluff Creek Boulevard. 3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements · Trunk sanitary sewer along Bluff Creek Boulevard. Todd Gerhardt April 10, 2006 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc 4. Storm Drainage Improvements · Storm sewer and ponding improvements along Bluff Creek Boulevard. 5. Streetscape Improvements · Street lighting along Bluff Creek Boulevard. · Landscaping along Bluff Creek Boulevard. FUNDING Based upon the latest estimates, the total estimated project cost for the Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements is approximately $6.2 million. A portion of the project costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners in the project area. Assessments are proposed at 6.5% interest over seven (7) years. The following are the estimated funding sources with estimates: Assessments $4,757,500.00 Water Utility Fund $158,900.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $119,300.00 MSA Fund $1,149,400.00 Total Project Cost $6,185,100.00 SCHEDULE The proposed schedule for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements is as follows: Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Ad for Bids April 10, 2006 Bid Opening May 26, 2006 Receive Bids & Award Contract June 5, 2006 Start Construction June 2006 Assessment Hearing Nov. 13, 2006 Construction Complete July 2007 The construction of these improvements will need to be closely coordinated with adjacent private developments that will most likely be under construction at the same time. A copy of the plans and specifications for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements are available for review in the Engineering Department. Attachments c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: Longacres Neighborhood Drainage Improvements & Lyman Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Repairs – Project Nos. 06-09 & 06-08 BACKGROUND Longacres Neighborhood Drainage Improvements On September 4 and 5, 2005, Chanhassen experienced nearly a 100-year rainfall event. The storm event caused drainage and erosion problems in many parts of the city. Newly graded developments were particularly susceptible to erosion and drainage problems. In the case of Highcrest Meadows, the final grading was not complete, the site was not stabilized to withstand the extreme rainfall and the stormwater infrastructure had not been installed. The volume of runoff and accompanying debris and sediment caused damage to a number of existing homes. It also alerted the City to an existing condition in the Longacres neighborhood that intensified the effects of the rain event. If the development would have been finished and the storm sewer system functioning, impacts to the existing property owners most likely would not have taken place. However, due to the amount of runoff and debris that entered the City storm sewer system from the development, the storm sewer system became clogged and backed up. Normally, when storm systems backup or become clogged, an emergency overflow (EOF) system should take the runoff and channel it over land away from structures to minimize the amount of property damage. At this particular location, an EOF was designed to flow over Longacres Drive but the road was built approximately 1.5' higher than planned and therefore restricted the overflow from the pond. Also, the properties on the south side of Longacres Drive where the EOF was designed to flow between two properties was not graded to building plan and also restricted the overflow water from the pond. The developer of Highcrest Meadows (Coffman Development, Inc.) and the City have been working together with the affected Longacres residents to identify and devise a solution as a result of the Labor Day weekend storm. The attached drawing shows the most feasible fix of the problem. It involves the installation of an EOF storm sewer pipe from the pond. Lyman Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Improvement On December 16, 2005, a sewer backup occurred in the Summerfield development. The sewer backup was immediately cleared and the sewer pipe was cleaned by City staff. In researching why the sewer backed up, it was determined that a segment of sewer pipe Todd Gerhardt April 10, 2006 Page 2 C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc under Lyman Boulevard has settled and caused the sewage to backup. The area of settlement is adjacent to a wetland complex and it is speculated that poor soils under the pipe have settled. The sanitary sewer pipe can no longer be maintained or be relied on for proper sewer flow. It is recommended that the sewer pipe be replaced and any poor soils under the sewer pipe be removed and replaced with the necessary pipe bedding material. DISCUSSION In order to fix both of these system problems, plans for projects will need to be drafted, the projects bid out and the projects constructed with proper oversight. Staff does not have the expertise to complete the project so a consultant would need to be hired. Staff solicited price proposals from a few consultants for these improvements. The proposals were due back on March 17, 2006 and the fees are as follows: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Bonestroo & Assoc. HTPO Longacres Drive Pond Imp. $20,610.00 $24,459.00 $23,000.00 Lyman Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Imp. $16,100.00 $5,472.00 $8,000.00 TOTALS $36,710.00 $29,931.00* $31,000.00 *Low Proposal FUNDING The Longacres Drive Pond Improvements are proposed to be funded through the Surface Water Management Fund (Fund 720). Since this is a retrofit project, it is proposed to be paid for out of the operating budget, not the Capital Improvement Program. The 2006 budget for the Surface Water Management Fund allocates $600,000 to fees for services. The Lyman Boulevard sanitary sewer improvements are proposed to be funded through the Sewer Operations budget. Since this is not a planned capital improvement, funding for the design and construction administration services are proposed to come out of the annual fees for Service budget. The construction cost is proposed to come out of the sewer repair maintenance budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends awarding a contract to Bonestroo & Associates for the Longacres Storm Sewer and Lyman Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Improvements work. Attachments: 1. CIP Pages 2. Longacres Drainage Improvement Map 3. Lyman Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Improvements Map MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Stonefield Development Project No. 06-07 (Simple Majority Vote Required) The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval from the final plat and construction plans and specifications review process. Staff has calculated the required financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract at $981,805.21 and the administration fees total of $287,406.76 which includes all of the required SWMP, Park Fees and Arterial Collector Fee for Lyman Boulevard. No City funds are needed as part of this private development project. The applicant has also submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for staff review and City Council approval. Staff has reviewed the plans and specifications and finds the plans still need some minor modifications. Staff requests that the City Council grant staff the flexibility to administratively approve the plans after working with the applicant's engineer to modify the plans accordingly. It is therefore recommended that the construction plans and specifications for Stonefield dated February 7 and March 1, 2006 prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and the development contract dated April 10, 2006 be approved conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $981,805.21 and pay an administration fee of $287,406.76. 2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to meet City standards. Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated April 10, 2006. 2. Breakdown of Administration Fees dated April 10, 2006. 3. Construction plans and specifications are available for review in the Engineering Department. c: Plowshares Development g:\eng\projects\stonefield\approve dc2.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA STONEFIELD DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) i TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1 2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1 4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-2 5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2 6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2 7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3 8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3 9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................SP-8 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1 2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1 4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1 5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1 6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2 7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2 8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2 8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2 9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3 10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3 11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3 12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3 13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3 14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4 15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4 16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4 17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4 18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4 19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5 20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5 21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5 22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6 22. MISCELLANEOUS A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6 B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7 C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7 D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7 ii E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7 F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7 G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7 H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7 I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7 J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8 K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8 L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8 M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8 N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8 O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8 P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9 Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9 R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9 S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9 T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9 U. Soil Conditions..............................................................................................GC-9 V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10 W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10 X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10 Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10 Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-10 SP-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) STONEFIELD SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated April 10, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, PLOWESHARES DEVELOPMENT, INC., a limited liability company (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Stonefield (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat. 3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A: Final plat approved April 10, 2006, prepared by Westwood Professional Services. Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated February 7, 2006, prepared by Westwood Professional Services. Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated March 1, 2006, prepared by Westwood Professional Services. Plan D: Landscape Plan dated March 1, 2006, prepared by Westwood Professional Services. SP-2 4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: A. Sanitary Sewer System B. Water System C. Storm Water Drainage System D. Streets E. Concrete Curb and Gutter F. Street Lights G. Site Grading/Restoration H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV) I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments J. Surveying and Staking K. Landscaping L. Erosion Control 5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by November 15, 2006 except the Street Wear Course layer will be installed by November 15, 2007. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto, from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $981,805.21. The amount of the security was calculated as of the following: Site Grading/ Erosion control /Restoration (already collected LOC) $ 216,339.61 Sanitary Sewer $ 213,793.60 Watermain $ 88,634.00 Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $ 160,505.00 Streets $ 288,465.85 Street lights and signs $ 11,000.00 Engineering, surveying, and inspection $_56,000.00 Landscaping $ 54,484.50 TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $1,089,222.56 AMOUNT OF SECURITY CALCULATED AS (110% TOTAL) $1,198,144.82 AMOUNT COLLECTED - $216,339.61 NET CASH ESCROW $981,805.21 SP-3 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City. 7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Todd Simning PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT INC. 1851 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 952-361-0832 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 8. Other Special Conditions. A. SECURITIES AND FEES 1. A $981,805.21 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed improvements, the $287,406.76 cash administration fee and the fully-executed development contract must be submitted and shall be submitted prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting. 2. The applicant shall pay the total of $59,299.00 SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 3. $216,339.61 is the developer's estimate for the Site Grading/ Erosion Control/Restoration which has been already collected with the regional storm water pond letter of credit. B. The proposed enlargement of the existing stormwater pond must be designed to meet the City’s minimum standards and coordinated and approved by the City Water Resources Coordinator. SP-4 C. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Storm sewer sizing calculations have been submitted for staff’s review and some minor revisions are still needed. D. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. E. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Watershed District, MN Department of Health, Carver County and the Williams Pipe Line Company. F. The developer must obtain written permission from the Williams Pipe Line Company to perform the proposed grading within the easement. The developer is responsible for complying with all conditions of the Williams Pipe Line Company and assumes full responsibility for work performed within this easement. G. On the utility plan: 1. Add a note: All water services must be (1") Type K copper. 2. Extend the storm sewer further to the south along the proposed Stonefield Lane to the end of the temporary cul-de-sac. 3. All backyard catch basins must be built per City Detail Plate No. 3103. 4. Add a catch basin at the north east corner of Lot 1, Block 4 along Osprey Lane or proposed Stonefield Lane. H. On the grading plan, show the benchmark used for the site survey. I. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. J. The underlying property has not been assessed sewer or water hookup fees. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees are collectible with building permit issuance at the rates in effect at time of application. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078.00 per unit for watermain and the SAC fee is $1,625.00 per unit. The party applying for the permit is responsible for payment of these hookup charges, or the fees can be specially assessed against the parcel. K. All disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. SP-5 L. Any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. M. 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. . N. The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost and construction of the lift station and forcemain and any associated costs. O. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also 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. P. Revise the plans to show street lights every 300 feet, a stop sign at the street intersection and a sign at the cul-de-sac. The sign at the cul-de-sac shall read: “Temporary cul-de-sac. This roadway will be extended in the future.” Q. City Forester’s Conditions: 1. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 2. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. 3. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. 4. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 10/14/05. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. R. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Stonefield pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total $174,000 (30 lots x $5,800). Additionally, the applicant is required to construct the neighborhood asphalt trail connector to the property line as depicted on their preliminary plan submittals. S. Water Resource Coordinator’s Conditions: 1. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland D on Lots 8-10, Block 3. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install SP-6 wetland buffer edge signs on Lots 8-10, Block 3 under the direction of City staff before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 2. All structures on Lots 8-10, Block 3 shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 3. A temporary basin shall be constructed in the vicinity of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. The temporary sediment basin shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope area. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the basin shall be installed; details shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e. The basins must provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). 4. Curbside inlet controls are needed; Wimco type or ESS type (or approved similar protection) inlet controls shall be used. Curbside inlet protection shall be provided for existing inlets adjacent to the site exit on Osprey Lane. City standard inlet protection details 5302 and 5302A shall be included in the plans. The proposed rear yard catch basin protection shall be revised; Wimco type, ESS type or equal must be used. The proposed silt fence shall be installed with additional rock around Chanhassen type 1 silt fence. 5. 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. 6. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. T. Fire Marshall Conditions: 1. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be either removed from site or chipped. SP-7 2. 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. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 3. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 4. 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. 5. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable. U. Building Official Conditions: 1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 3. Separate sewer and water services must be provided to each lot. V. The retaining walls shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. W. The City shall not be responsible for maintenance of storm water infrastructure on Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block 3. X. In the event that the regional pond project is not constructed, the applicant has proposed the installation of a second outlet structure on Pond A. In that event, the existing outlet structure that is failing must also be replaced. The cost of a new outlet structure to replace the existing failing structure would be borne by the City, but the replacement would be done by the applicant. Y. The developer shall pay the $26,856.00 Arterial Collector Fee. Z. Approval of the final plat is contingent upon approval of final construction plans/specifications for the project along with the developer entering into a development contract with the City and supplying the necessary financial security and fees. SP-8 AA. Due to the amount of fill required to reconstruct the section of Osprey Lane that abuts the Stonefield development, Osprey Lane must be closed to traffic for a period of time this summer. The City authorizes the closure of Osprey Lane from May 1, 2006 until July 31, 2006. The developer must notify in writing all properties within 500 feet of the development to inform the residents of the upcoming closure, the detour route and why the closure is necessary by April 17, 2006. “Road Closed” and detour signs must be posted a minimum of 10 days before the closure. Requests to extend the time of closure must be submitted in writing to the City Engineer for consideration. BB. The frontage on Lot 2, Block 1, shall be corrected to reflect 90 feet.” 9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. SP-9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (SEAL) AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager PLOWESHARES DEVELOPMENT, INC. BY: Todd Simning, President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Todd Simning, President of PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT INC. on behalf of the company. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 SP-10 EXHIBIT "A" TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the following described line and its northerly and southerly extensions; Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 04 minutes 49 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 790.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 1 degree 57 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 460.00 feet; thence North 18 degrees 32 minutes 33 seconds East, a distance of 330.00 feet; thence North 52 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 638.57 feet; thence North 1 degree 57 minutes 27 seconds West, a distance of 150.59 feet to a point on the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant 156.07 feet Easterly of the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter as measured along said North line and there terminating. AND That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows, to-wit: The north 375.00 feet lying Westerly of the following described line, to-wit: Beginning at a point in the North line of said Southwest Quarter of Northwest Quarter (SW 1/4 of NW 1/4) distant 849.31 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence Southwesterly deflecting 64 degrees 42 minutes 04 seconds from West to South from said North line, a distance of 163.19 feet; thence Southerly deflecting to the left 32 degrees 35 minutes 37 seconds a distance of 125.62 feet; thence Southwesterly deflecting to the right 22 degrees 58 minutes 52 seconds a distance of 302.23 feet; thence Southerly to the northwest corner of the East 290.75 feet of the West 484.2 feet of the South 539.7 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW 1/4 of NW 1/4) as measured along the West and East lines of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW 1/4 of NW 1/4); thence South parallel with the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter to the South line of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW 1/4 of NW 1/4) and there terminating, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota. AND Outlot A, Shenandoah Ridge, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota. Abstract. MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT , which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of , 20 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by . NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. ___________________ Date: _________________ TO: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________, 2______, of (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2______. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty- five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: ____________________________________ Its ______________________________ GC-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks. 3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval. 4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. 5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the GC-2 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. 6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the erosion and sediment control measures. 8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash GC-3 escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City Code § 7-22. 9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City Council resolution. 11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees. 12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions. 13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line). In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued, except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions GC-4 must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project approval. 14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements. A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years from the date of final written acceptance. C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season following acceptance by the City. 15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance. 16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread against the plat in accordance with City standards. 17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook- up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application. If paid with the building permit, the party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees. 18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A GC-5 plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for twenty (20) months. 19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the Developer. 20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location. 21. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be calculated as follows: i) If the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs; ii) If the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000; iii) If the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for the first $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1½%) of construction costs over $1,000,000. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions. B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections. This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement. GC-6 C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges ("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the respective franchise agreements held with the City. H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in the Carver County Coordinate system. 22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 23. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty GC-7 (30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this Contract or for allowing deviations from it. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in accordance with Plan B of the development plans. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing. I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior GC-8 to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties: First violation $ 500.00 Second violation $ 1,000.00 Third & subsequent violations All site development and construction must cease for seven (7) calendar days M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph. N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat. O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing GC-9 operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the City. P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales) within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat. The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period. Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances. S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District(s); 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to enter into this Development Contract. U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. GC-10 V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot. W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material, construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be approved by the City Engineer X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project. The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer, developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours. Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4) location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf & .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed, including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic format. Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built escrow withheld until all work is complete. GC-11 Rev. 12/27/05 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for Gateway North Development Project No. 06-10 (Simple Majority Vote Required) The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval from the final plat and construction plans and specifications review process. Staff has calculated the required financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract at $27,786.00 and the administration fees total of $1,410.80 which includes all of the required SWMP and Park Fees. No City funds are needed as part of this private development project. The applicant has also submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for staff review and City Council approval. Staff has reviewed the plans and specifications and finds the plans still need some minor modifications. Staff requests that the City Council grant staff the flexibility to administratively approve the plans after working with the applicant's engineer to modify the plans accordingly. It is therefore recommended that the construction plans and specifications for Gateway North dated December 19, 2006 prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and the development contract dated April 10, 2006 be approved conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $27,786.00 and pay an administration fee of $1,410.80. 2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to meet City standards. Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated April 10, 2006. 2. Breakdown of Administration Fees dated April 10, 2006. 3. Construction plans and specifications are available for review in the Engineering Department. c: Chanhassen Gateway Place, LLC g:\eng\projects\gatewaynorth\approve dc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA GATEWAY NORTH DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) i TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1 2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1 4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-2 5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2 6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2 7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3 8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3 9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................SP-5 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1 2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1 4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1 5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1 6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2 7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2 8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2 8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2 9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3 10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3 11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3 12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3 13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3 14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4 15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4 16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4 17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4 18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4 19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5 20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5 21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5 22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6 22. MISCELLANEOUS A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6 B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7 C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7 D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7 ii E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7 F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7 G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7 H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7 I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7 J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8 K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8 L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8 M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8 N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8 O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8 P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9 Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9 R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9 S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9 T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9 U. Soil Conditions..............................................................................................GC-9 V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10 W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10 X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10 Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10 Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-10 SP-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) GATEWAY NORTH SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated April 10, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PLACE, LLC, a limited liability company (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Gateway North (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat. 3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A: Final plat approved April 10, 2006, prepared by Westwood Professional Services. Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated December 19, 2005, prepared by Westwood Professional Services. Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated December 19, 2005, prepared by Westwood Engineering Professional Services. Plan D: Landscape Plan dated March 21, 2006, prepared by Sand Companies. SP-2 4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: A. Sanitary Sewer System B. Water System C. Storm Water Drainage System D. Streets E. Concrete Curb and Gutter F. Street Lights G. Site Grading/Restoration H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV) I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments J. Surveying and Staking K. Landscaping L. Erosion Control 5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by November 15, 2006. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto, from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $27,786.00. The amount of the security was calculated as 110% of the following: Watermain $11,490.00 Streets & Sidewalk $13,770.00 TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $25,260.00 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City. SP-3 7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Jamie J. Thelen Chanhassen Gateway Place, LLC. 307 Golf View Drive P. O. Box 727 Albany, MN. 56307 Phone: 320-202-3114 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 8. Other Special Conditions. A. SECURITIES AND FEES A $27,786.00 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed improvements, the $1,410.80 cash administration fee and the fully-executed development contract must be submitted and shall be submitted prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting. B. Details on the storm sewer connection to proposed Lake Susan Drive and proposed TH 212 should be provided. C. 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 remain open Steeper than 3:1 7 days when the area is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days 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. D. Rock construction entrance shall be installed as illustrated on Chanhassen Detail Plate No. 5301. SP-4 E. Wimco or similar inlet protection shall be installed at all inlets that may receive storm water from site per Chanhassen Detail Plate 5302A. All inlet protection shall be inspected and maintained to comply with NPDES requirements. F. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. G. Temporary stabilization of the exposed area shall include a straw or hay cover at a rate of 2 tons per acre, disc anchored into the soil, including the area around the apartment building. H. On the grading plan, the following should be revised: 1. The second note should include language to address maintenance of the rock construction entrance as needed. 2. The sixth note should be revised to read “All exposed soils not actively worked must be seeded and mulched within…” 3. The tenth note should include a statement about maintaining compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit. 4. Show storm water structures rim and invert elevations. 5. Show minimum 75-feet construction rock entrance. 6. Show the contours for proposed Highway 212 and the area south of Highway 212. 7. The applicant must coordinate and obtain MnDOT approval for the proposed drainage discharge south of the proposed pond. I. Work with staff to revise the storm sewer and pond design calculations for the 10- and 100-year storm event. J. The applicant is required to coordinate with MnDOT regarding the full access at Lake Susan Drive and the storm pond outlet control sewer construction. K. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and complying with all regularity agency permits: Watershed District, MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Health Department, etc. L. On the utility plan: 1. Show storm sewer pipe type, class, and size. 2. Show all storm water manholes rim and invert elevations. M. The developer shall coordinate the watermain construction within the Right-of-Way of Lake Susan Drive extension with MnDOT and Zumbro River Construction. N. The sidewalk along the north portion of Lot 1, Block 2, must connect with the Highway 101 sidewalk and be approved by Minnesota Department of Transportation. The developer is responsible for the construction of the sidewalk from existing Highway 101 to the new Highway 101 extension. If a site plan for Lot 2, Block 2, is approved by the City Council before a SP-5 Certificate of Occupancy issued for the building on Lot 1, Block 2, the developer of Lot 2, Block 2, will be responsible for constructing the sidewalk west of the entrance to the apartment building on Lot 1, Block 2. O. Temporary easements are required for any off-site grading. P. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. Q. If fill is coming from and/or going to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. R. All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. S. Use the 2006 City Detail Plates Nos. 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2202, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302A, and 5313. T. On the sidewalk and paving plan: 1. Show the length of the parking stalls. 2. The access at Lake Susan Drive must be minimum 26 feet wide. 3. All driveway aisles must be minimum 26 feet wide. 4. A “Do Not Enter, One Way” sign must be installed within the northern parking lot island and the 12 foot driveway be striped for one-way traffic for north-bound vehicles. U. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City’s Building Department. V. On the plat and plans, show a 20 foot drainage and utility easement centered on the property line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. W. A cross access easement over the shared driveway must be obtained and recorded against Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. SP-6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (SEAL) AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PLACE, LLC: BY: Jamie Thelen, Chief Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Jamie Thelen, Chief Manager, of Chanhassen Gateway North, LLC, on behalf of the company. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 EXHIBIT "A" TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: That part of the west half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said Section 24; thence along the west line of said Section, 24, South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 1495.27 feet to a point that is described as the "Point of Beginning" of Tract B in Document No. 306531, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder and said point also being on the northerly Right of Way line of Highway 312 as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10-17, Carver County, Minnesota; thence along said northerly Right of Way line, North 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West, a distance of 174.31 feet of the Point of Beginning of the Tract of land herein described; thence along said northerly Right of Way line, the following two (2) courses: thence South 89 degrees 33 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of 63.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 134.66 feet to a corner of said northerly Right of Way line common with the northerly line of a certain tract of land described in said Doc. No. 306531; thence northeasterly along said northerly Right of Way line common with said Document No. 306531 the following three (3) courses: thence along a curve, concave to the southeast, whose elements are: arc length of 419.19 feet, radius of 4669.60 feet, central angle of 05 degrees 08 minutes 36 seconds and a chord that bears North 61 degrees 09 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 419.05 feet; thence North 19 degrees 12 minutes 32 seconds East, a distance of 49.59 feet; thence North 71 degrees 27 minutes 35 seconds East, a distance of 67.79 feet to the intersection with the westerly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 101 as shown on said Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10-17; thence northerly along said westerly line, the following two (2) courses; thence North 01 degrees 48 minutes 38 seconds East, a distance of 414.90 feet; thence North 20 degrees 41 mintues 17 seconds West, a distance of 38.07 feet to the intersection with the southerly right of way line of Lake Susan Drive as shown on said Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10-17; thence southwesterly along said southerly line of Lake Susan Drive the following four (4) courses: thence along a curve, concave to the south, whose elements are: arc length 75.42 feet, radius of 250.00 feet, central angle of 17 degrees 17 minutes 09 seconds and a chord that bears South 56 degrees 55 minutes 33 seconds West, a distance of 75.14 feet; thence South 48 degrees 16 mintues 58 seconds West, a distance of 225.39 feet; thence along a curve, concave to the north, whose elements are: arc length of 254.20 feet, radius of 350.00 feet, central angle of 41 degrees 36 minutes 49 seconds and a chord that bears South 69 degrees 05 minutes 22 seconds West, a distance of 248.65 feet; thence South 89 degrees 53 minutes 47 seconds West, a distance of 47.02 feet to said west line of Section 24, being also the centerline of the existing right of way for Trunk Highway No. 101 and also an easterly line of the plat of Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition, a plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota; thence along said west line of Section 24, South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 305.89 feet to the Point of Beginning. AND That part of the west half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said Section 24; thence along the west line of said Section 24, South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 727.22 feet to the Point of Beginning of the land herein described; thence continuing along said west line, South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 187.88 feet to northerly line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10-17, a plat that is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota; thence along said northerly line of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10-17, the following four (4) courses: thence North 89 degrees 53 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 46.89 feet; thence along a curve concave to the northwest, whose elements are: arc length of 181.57 feet, radius of 250.00 feet, central angle of 41 degrees 36 minutes 48 seconds and a chord that bears North 69 degrees 05 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 177.61 feet; thence North 48 degrees 16 minutes 58 seconds East a distance of 225.39 feet; thence along a curve, concave to the southeast, whose elements are: arc length of 61.18 feet, radius of 350.00 feet, central angle of 10 degrees 00 minutes 57 seconds and a chord that bears North 53 degrees 17 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 61.11 feet to the intersection with the south line of the north 660 feet of said west half of the Northwest Quarter; thence along said south line, North 89 degrees 19 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 397.14 feet to the easterly right of way line of Highway No. 101, being also the most northeasterly corner of a certain tract of land deeded to Bell Telephone and described in Document No. 90735, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota; thence southeasterly, southwesterly and northwesterly along the lines of said certain tract of land deeded to Bell Telephone in Document No. 90735, the following three (3) courses: thence South 26 degrees 47 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 241.31 feet; thence along a curve, concave to the northwest, whose elements are: arc length of 85.00 feet; radius of 506.30 feet; central angle of 09 degrees 37 minutes 07 seconds and a chord that bears South 66 degrees 55 minutes 58 seconds West a distance of 84.90 feet; thence North 19 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 192.70 feet to the Point of Beginning. AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, described as follows: Beginning at the southeasterly corner of Trunk Highway No. 101 as dedicated on the plat of Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition, a plat on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota, being also on the westerly line of said Section 24, being also on the centerline of said Trunk Highway No. 101; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds East, along said centerline, a distance of 212.17 feet to the southeasterly corner of a certain tract of land deeded to Meritor Development Corporation in Document No. 104301; thence along the southeasterly line of said Document No. 104301, South 54 degrees 25 minutes 33 seconds West, a distance of 38.32 feet to the east line of said Chanhassen Hills 3rd Addition; thence along said east line, North 00 degrees 11 minutes 39 seconds West, a distance of 234.30 feet to the southwesterly corner of said dedicated part of Trunk Highway No. 101; thence along the southerly line of said dedicated part, North 89 degrees 41 minutes 51 seconds East, a distance of 31.87 feet to the Point of Beginning. MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT , which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of , 20 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by . NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. ___________________ Date: _________________ TO: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________, 2______, of (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2______. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty- five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: ____________________________________ Its ______________________________ GC-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks. 3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval. 4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. 5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the GC-2 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. 6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the erosion and sediment control measures. 8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash GC-3 escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City Code § 7-22. 9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City Council resolution. 11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees. 12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions. 13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line). In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued, except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions GC-4 must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project approval. 14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements. A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years from the date of final written acceptance. C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season following acceptance by the City. 15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance. 16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread against the plat in accordance with City standards. 17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook- up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application. 18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs GC-5 the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for twenty (20) months. 19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the Developer. 20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location. 21. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be calculated as follows: i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs; ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000; iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for the first $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1½%) of construction costs over $1,000,000. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions. B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections. This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement. GC-6 C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges ("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the respective franchise agreements held with the City. H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in the Carver County Coordinate system. 22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 23. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty GC-7 (30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this Contract or for allowing deviations from it. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in accordance with Plan B of the development plans. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing. I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior GC-8 to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties: First violation $ 500.00 Second violation $ 1,000.00 Third & subsequent violations All site development and construction must cease for seven (7) calendar days M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph. N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat. O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing GC-9 operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the City. P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales) within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat. The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period. Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances. S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District(s); 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to enter into this Development Contract. U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. GC-10 V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot. W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material, construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be approved by the City Engineer X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project. The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer, developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours. Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4) location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf & .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed, including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic format. Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built escrow withheld until all work is complete. GC-11 Rev. 12/27/05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN GATEWAY NORTH PROJECT NO. 06-10 BREAKDOWN OF ADMINISTRATION FEES - 4/10/06 Based on$25,260of Estimated Public Improvements 3.0% of Public Improvement Costs (< $500,000)757.80$ Final Plat Process (Attorney Fee for Review of Plat and 450.00$ Development Contract) Recording Fees a. Development Contract 46.00$ b. Plat Filing 56.00$ c. Driveway Easement 46.00$ GIS Fee ($25/plat and $10/parcel)55.00$ Park Fees (already paid)-$ Surface Water management Fees (already paid)-$ TOTAL ADMINISTRATION FEES 1,410.80$ Breakdown of Administrative Fees.xls C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.docC:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: East Water Treatment Plant, Project No. 04-08-4: Approve Quote with CenturyTel for Fiber Optic Installation REQUESTED ACTION Approve quote with CenturyTel for fiber optic installation. BACKGROUND The East Water Treatment plant is currently scheduled for substantial completion at the end of the year. The treatment plant will need to be run remotely and at other City facilities. The new water treatment facility will require connectivity to the city network for both voice and data communication. The fiber connection will enable appropriate staff the ability to both monitor and control water treatment functions through a secure connection from City Hall and the Public Works facilities. To facilitate this connection, a fiber optic connection will need to be made to the plant. The fiber optic line is located on the south side of TH 5. The work will include directional boring the fiber optic cable under TH 5 to the water treatment plant and extending the fiber optic to the building. The City IT department will then connect the fiber optic cable to the control room equipment and the City network. CenturyTel is the only provider for fiber optic cable the City can use. The quote for the work from Century Tel is $28,433.00. Funding for this work was programmed in the 2006 CIP #EQ-072. The original proposal was to extend the fiber from Great Plains Boulevard to the water treatment plant. It was determined more economical to directional bore the fiber across TH 5. Attachments C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Lake Susan Playground Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director DATE: March 28, 2006 SUBJ: Award of Bid, Lake Susan Park Playground Poured-in-Place Resilient Surfacing The 2005 Playground Improvement Project included the installation of a large community play structure at Lake Susan Park. On August 25, 2005, the City Council approved the purchase of the structure itself. Following this approval the playground was installed utilizing City forces. The one remaining work item prior to opening the playground is the purchase and installation of the poured-in- place resilient surfacing. Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. has prepared a project manual for this work and the attached advertisement for bids was published. The contract specifies that the work shall be completed within 6 weeks of the date of award. This will ensure that the playground will be open prior to Memorial Day weekend. The budget for the poured-in-place resilient surfacing is $70,000. On Friday, April 7, 2006, sealed bids will be opened at City Hall at 11:00 a.m. Staff is recommending that the City Council award this contract to the lowest responsible bidder within budget. A complete bid tabulation will be emailed to the Council prior to the meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Manual Cover Sheets 2. Playground Schematic 3. Bid Opening Press Release 4. CIP Documentation MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Mayor and City Council FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: April 7, 2006 SUBJ: Bid Results, Lake Susan Park Playground Poured-in-Place Resilient Surfacing Two bids were received as a result of the advertisement to provide poured-in- place resilient playground surfacing for the Lake Susan Park Playground Project: Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground $59,045 Earl F. Anderson, Inc. $58,378 The low bid is $11,622 less than the $70,000 budgeted for this portion of the project. To date, including the new surfacing for Lake Susan, $430,451.48 has been invested in the 2005 Playground Replacement Project. The total project budget is $455,000. Remaining work items include the installation of two short asphalt access trails, site restoration, and sodding. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council award the Lake Susan Park Playground Poured-in-Place Resilient Surfacing project as specified, including all labor, materials, shipping, taxes and miscellaneous costs, to Earl F. Anderson Inc. for the lump sum amount of $58,378.00. c: Roger Knutson, City Attorney Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent G:\PARK\TH\2005 Playground Projects\poured in place bid.doc C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Fireworks Contract.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director FROM: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent DATE: March 17, 2006 SUBJ: 2006 Fourth of July Fireworks Contract In preparing for the upcoming Fourth of July Celebration, our department solicited quotes for the 2006 fireworks show. We received quotes from Arrowhead Fireworks Company and Melrose Pyrotechnics. Both companies prepared and submitted the necessary quote information and returned it by the established due date. After reviewing both quotes, it was apparent that both companies met the specifications; however, Melrose’s show appears to have more bang for the buck. Their opening body, main body, and grand finale had more selection and variety. Additionally, Melrose offers a unique feature—a mid-show barrage and a pre-finale teaser. The City of Chanhassen has contracted with Melrose Pyrotechnics for over 20 years. Staff is comfortable with the safety and quality of the products they provide. Staff has also developed a great working relationship with the lead technician from Melrose and, over the years, everyone’s expectations have been met. This has saved the city staff time and money by not having to go through set up and event details year after year. Last year, the fireworks display was musically choreographed by St. Croix Events. This company has worked with Melrose Pyrotechnics in other cities (such as Stillwater) and received corporate sponsorships to provide the music free of charge to the city last year. St. Croix Events has submitted a bid of $11,000 to choreograph the fireworks in 2006. This amount has not been included in the 2006 Budget, and therefore staff has not pursued this any further. RECOMMENDATION It is staff’s recommendation that the Park & Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Fourth of July Fireworks contract with Melrose Pyrotechnics in the amount of $23,000. This amount is included in Fund 1600 of the 2006 Budget. The fireworks display will take place on Tuesday, July 4 at 10 p.m. at Lake Ann Park. Mr. Todd Hoffman March 17, 2006 Page 2 STAFF UPDATE – (3-29-06) The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the Fourth of July Fireworks contract at their March 28th meeting. After review, the Park and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the 2006 contract from Melrose Pyrotechnics in the amount of $23,000. C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Cell Tower Report.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager DATE: March 24, 2006 RE: Cell Tower Lease Agreement with T-Mobile for Murray Hill Water Tower BACKGROUND Staff has been contacted by representatives from T-Mobile regarding the installation of cellular phone antennae on the Murray Hill water tower. This tower currently does not have any cellular equipment on it, and T-Mobile is interested in this site to provide better service for T-Mobile customers. The key points of the agreement are as follows: · The term of the lease is for five years, beginning on the earlier of November 1, 2006 or the date construction begins. The lease can be extended for up to 20 years (four renewal terms of five years each). · Rent for the first term is $1,650/month. This amount increases by 3% in each successive renewal term. This rent structure is similar to other cell leases in the City. · Ant taxes levied on the property due to the antennae will be paid by T- Mobile. · Any expenses incurred by the City due to the antennae will be reimbursed by T-Mobile. · The agreement may be terminated by the City if rent is not paid 15 days after written notice, if the water tower no longer becomes needed, or if a higher priority user (such as a City or public safety use) is needed. · T-Mobile will pay an administrative fee of $5,000 on the commencement date to pay for independent inspections services that the City intends on using to monitor the installation of the antennae. · A small equipment building will be constructed to house electronic equipment needed to operate the cellular antennas. A letter was sent to neighboring property owners notifying them of this proposal (letter attached to this report). Since this letter was sent, staff has met with some of the neighbors to answer some of their questions. Copies of correspondence with the neighbors are also attached. The main concerns of those who contacted staff were health impacts, the potential for noise, the addition of a new building to the site, perceived impacts to property values, as well as increased traffic. Health concerns are obviously important, and to address them, sections of a report from the FDA are attached. The key finding C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Cell Tower Report.doc of this report is the following statement in regards to cellular telephone base stations: “In fact, ground-level exposure from such antennas is typically thousands of times less than the exposure levels recommended as safe by expert organizations. So exposure to nearby residents would be well within safety margins.” The full report can be found at www.fda.gov/cellphones. As for noise, similar equipment is located at our W. 76th Street tower, and in order to hear any noise coming from that building, you must be within feet of the door. The new building will be completely surrounded by a wooden fence, and traffic is expected to be one visit every three months by T-Mobile personnel to check on their equipment. An analysis of property values was performed for the homes immediately surrounding the W. 76th Street tower, and these homes saw property values increase commensurate with other properties in Chanhassen, some even experiencing double digit increases from 2004 to 2005. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve the attached Water Tower Antennae Agreement with T-Mobile Central., LLC for the purposes of installing cellular telephone antennae on the Murray Hill Water Tower. This action requires a majority of the City Council for approval. MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01: Approve Resolution Deleting the Koehnen Street Improvements REQUESTED ACTION Approve resolution. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2005, the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for this project. On January 9, 2006, the City Council received the feasibility study and called the public hearing. On January 23, 2006, the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. On January 23, 2006, the Council approved the designation of Yosemite Avenue as an MSA Route. On March 20, 2006, the Council approved the plans and specifications for the project. DISCUSSION The 2006 Street Improvement Project consisted of three project areas, the Koehnen Area street reconstruction, the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood rehabilitation, and the Lake Ann Park parking lot improvements. Since December 2005, staff has been working to with MnDOT and the City of Shorewood to designate Yosemite Avenue and Apple Road as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route for the Koehnen Area project. This designation is required to use the City’s Municipal state aid funds on the Yosemite Avenue improvement portion of the project. In order to designate Yosemite Avenue as a MSA route, Apple Road in Shorewood from Yosemite Avenue to Powers Boulevard also needed to be designated as a MSA route. Delays in the Apple Road designation Todd Gerhardt April 10, 2006 Page 2 c:\docume~1\karene\locals~1\temp\staff report.doc delayed the Yosemite designation several weeks since both designations need to go through the MnDOT review process at the same time. Also, delays in the annual certification of mileage delayed the designation. Staff finally received confirmation of the Apple Road and Yosemite Avenue designation on March 23, 2006. The State of Minnesota still needs to review and approve the plan set prior to soliciting bids. This process is about four weeks long due to MnDOT's back log of projects. In reviewing the schedule, the 2006 Street Improvement Project would be awarded, at the earliest, the last City Council meeting in July and work on the project would not start until August. This schedule is not workable from a construction and property access perspective. Typically, street reconstruction projects should be substantially completed prior to September 1st or prior to fall school start. Staff would like to bring the Koehnen area project back to Council for consideration in the future for an early 2007 construction season start. Per Chapter 429 rules, a new public hearing does not have to be held if this project is let within one year of City Council’s authorization for preparation of plans and specifications. However staff suggests that Council hold a new public hearing in 2007 so that new property owners would have an opportunity to voice their opinion about the project. Staff will notify the property owners in the Koehnen area about the project delay after April 10, 2005. The Chanhassen Hills street rehabilitation and Lake Ann Park parking lots improvements are still on schedule for construction this summer. Attachment CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: April 10, 2006 RESOLUTION NO: 2006- MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION DELETING THE KOEHNEN AREA STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE 2006 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 06-01 WHEREAS, due to delays in the State designating Yosemite Avenue as a State Aid Route, the Koehnen Area Street Improvements must be deleted from the 2006 Street Improvement Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council: The Koehnen Street Improvements are deleted from the 2006 Street Improvement Project No. 06-01 Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of April, 2006. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor YES NO ABSENT MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: Accept Street & Storm Sewer Improvements Hidden Creek - Project No. 02-09 Staff has been contacted by Laura Turner of Loch Development requesting that the letter of credit for this project be reduced. While researching this request, Staff discovered that the streets and utilities within the development have not been formally accepted by City Council. The streets and utilities were installed in November, 2004. A maintenance bond for $678,822.00 was posted November 11, 2004. This bond expires November 11, 2006. It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept the public street and storm sewer improvements in Hidden Creek, Project No. 02-09, for perpetual maintenance and ownership. G:\ENG\PROJECTS\Hidden Creek\accept street and storm sewer.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2006 SUBJ: Vacation of Public Easements within Lot 5, Block 1, Boyer Lake Minnewashta Addition, 3071 Dartmouth Drive - Vacation File 06-01 REQUEST (Simple Majority Vote Required) Douglas & Gayle DeHaan, owners of Lot 5, Block 1, Boyer Lake Minnewashta request that City Council approve the vacation of a drainage and utility easement within their property. BACKGROUND The existing 20-foot wide public easement was platted with the Boyer Lake Minnewashta plat in 2003 and was centered on the lot line between Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. In 2005, the developer administratively subdivided Lots 5 through 8 (four lots) into three lots in order to accommodate larger building pads. Ten foot-wide drainage and utility easements along the new lot lines were granted on each lot with the administrative subdivision. Through the administrative subdivision process, the DeHaans acquired additional lot area. The original sanitary sewer location (shown as a solid green line on the attached exhibit) prohibits the DeHaan’s from constructing a patio, gazebo and other landscape amenities on the west side of their home. In January, 2006, the DeHaan’s submitted plans to the City and paid for the relocation of the sanitary sewer (shown as a dashed green line on the attached exhibit) to the new lot line within the 20-foot wide easement that was dedicated with the administrative subdivision. The original sanitary sewer was abandoned in-place since it no longer carries sewage, therefore, the drainage and utility easement over this abandoned pipe is no longer needed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution vacating the existing drainage and utility easement as defined on the attached vacation description.” Attachments: 1. Exhibit 2. Application 3. Description of Easement Vacation 4. Easement Vacation Sketch 5. Notice of Public Hearing/Location Map 6. Affidavit of Mailing c: Douglas and Gayle DeHaan Melissa Velander, Anderson Engineering G:\ENG\Vacations\06-01 Boyer Lake Minnewashta\04-10-06 CC memo.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN SI T E D A T A AP P L I C A N T PC DATE: April 4, 2006 CC DATE: April 10, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: April 18, 2006 CASE #: 06-11 BY: Josh Metzer, et.al. STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and a Site Plan Review for an office/warehouse building. LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park. APPLICANT: Eden Trace Corp. 8156 Mallory Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 361-0722 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial ACREAGE: 3.32 DENSITY: 0.34 F.A.R. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development Amendment for a 20-foot parking setback standard and Site Plan Review approval for a one- story, 49,105 square-foot, multi-tenant office/warehouse building. The amendment request is for a reduced parking setback on the southern property line. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City’s discretion in approving or denying a planned unit development amendment is limited to whether or not the proposed changes and project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standards, the City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 2 Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting site plan review approval for a one-story, 46,152 square-foot, multi- tenant office/warehouse building. As part of the site plan review the applicant is also requesting an amendment to the Chanhassen West Business Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 20-foot parking setback from Lyman Boulevard on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The current PUD calls for a 50-foot parking setback from the south property line abutting Lyman Boulevard. However, as part of the concept for the project, it was envisioned that a 20-foot parking setback would be established from Lyman Boulevard. Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 3 To the north and east of the proposed building are other undeveloped lots within the Chanhassen West Business Park. To the west is the stormwater pond and wetland contained in Outlot A. To the south is Lyman Boulevard on the other side of which is Holasek Greenhouse, Inc. The property south of Lyman Boulevard is also guided for Office/Industrial uses. The finished floor elevation at the southeast end of the building is one foot higher than Lyman Boulevard, and is five feet higher than Lyman Boulevard at the southwest corner of the building. Water and sewer service is being extended to the property as part of the Chanhassen West Business Park development. Access to the site will be gained via Galpin Court, a public street. The easterly access will be shared with Lot 1. The proposed finished floor elevation for the office/warehouse building is 961, the high elevation of this site. The site has an elevation of 959 at all five corners of the property’s parking lot, 958 at the northwestern property line, 959 at the northeast property line, 955 at the east property line, 958 at the south property line and an elevation of 952 at the western property line, the low elevation of the site. The loading docks have a proposed elevation of 957, four feet lower than the proposed floor elevation of the building to permit the backing of trailers up to the building. The proposed development complies with the development design standards for Chanhassen West Business Park. Building materials consist of prominently rock-faced block with burnished blocks as accents throughout the exterior of the building. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD Amendment and Site Plan subject to the conditions of this staff report. BACKGROUND On August 22, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: • Rezoning of the property located within the Chanhassen West Business Park from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD); • Preliminary Plat for Chanhassen West Business Park, plans prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated June 17, 2005; and • Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands within the development, plans prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated June 17, 2005. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS • Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review • Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office-Institutional Developments • Chanhassen West Business Park Development Design Standards Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 4 PUD AMENDMENT Current 50’ Parking Setback Requirement Proposed 20’ Parking Setback 20’ Parking Setback Property Line 50’ Parking Setback Property Line Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 5 The Chanhassen West Business Park PUD was approved with a 50-foot parking setback from the south property lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The applicant had originally shown a 20-foot parking setback from the Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 when the Chanhassen Business Park PUD was going through the approval process. During the review period the city and developer concentrated on the Galpin Boulevard frontage setbacks and assumed that the design standards and overall site plan matched as it related to Lyman Boulevard. The property to the south of Lyman Boulevard is guided for Office/Industrial uses. Standard building setbacks are 30 feet in Industrial Office Park (IOP) Districts. The proposed building setback from Lyman Boulevard is 70 feet. The amendment for reduced parking setback is to accommodate one row of parking. Chanhassen City Code permits reduced parking setbacks in IOP Districts stating: Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that one-hundred-percent screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. The applicant is requesting the Chanhassen West Business Park PUD be amended to allow Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, to maintain a 20-foot parking setback with a landscape buffer. A mix of 36 trees and 28 shrubs are proposed to be planted at the south property line of Lot 2 adjacent to Lyman Boulevard. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the plantings to meet minimum landscape requirements. Carver County has written a letter to the City regarding their concerns with the proposed PUD Amendment. Carver County has the intention of reconstructing Lyman Boulevard in the future. The County has not developed a reconstruction plan so they do not know what impact the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard would have on surrounding property or if additional right-of- way will be needed. Currently, the Lyman Boulevard right-of-way is 120 feet wide. This right-of-way width would accommodate four through lanes (two each direction), two right turn lanes (one each direction), a center left turn lane for both directions of traffic and a 10-foot wide pedestrian trail on the north side of Lyman Boulevard with 26 feet of right-of-way left over. The County had the opportunity to address the potential need for additional right-of way when Chanhassen West Business Park was in the platting process but did not do so. Staff feels the request for a reduced parking setback is reasonable and is recommending approval of the proposed amendment. Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 6 GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE Size Portion Placement Four entrances are located on the western elevation of the building, one with a northwesterly orientation, one with a southwesterly orientation and two facing directly west. Each entry has an arched copper metal canopy hung over the doors. Entrance pilasters are projected 4 inches from the building. Entrance cornices are two feet higher than the building parapet. Buildings of more than 40 feet in width shall be divided into smaller increments (between 20 and 40 feet) through articulation of the façade. A 58-foot section of the northern façade and a 56- foot section of the southern façade do not have an architectural division. Staff is recommending that an architectural articulation be incorporated to these sections of the northern and southern façades. This can be achieved through a number of techniques including: • Facade modulation-stepping back or forward or extending a portion of the facade • Vertical divisions using different textures or materials • Variation in the rooflines by alternating dormers and stepped roofs. Gables or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation intervals equal to the articulation interval • Providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree, or other landscape feature with each interval Material and Detail The building consists of 12-inch and 8-inch concrete block in burnished (polished) and rock- faced texture, and a stone veneer. Copper metal canopies are hung over each of the entries. Copper aluminum materials are used for door and window framing. The building façade incorporates window and entry patterning along its front with pilasters projected 4 inches at the entrances. Color The primary building color is a light-tan limestone. Accent colors include saddle (brownish- grey) above the building entries and as a trim feature above the window line and below the roofline running the circumference of the building. The roofline is furnished with a sherwood green (forest green) aluminum coping. Flanking the entryways are pilasters of kasota pink (pinkish-tan) with a saddle (brownish-grey) block base. Entry canopies, window frames and door frames are of a copper penny metal finish. Height and Roof Design Building height is 24’ 2” to the top of the parapet at the building entrances which rise above the rest of the parapet two feet. Each entrance will also be covered by a 16-foot wide arched, copper metal canopy which clearly identifies the entryways to the building. All rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened and shall be setback a minimum of 6 feet from the edge of the roof. Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 7 Facade transparency The proposed building incorporates four main entrances, two of which face a westerly direction, one northwesterly and another southwesterly. The entire western façade is lined with a combination of double and triple windows. The eastern façade is composed of seven 8’x 9’dock doors, two 14’x 14’drive-in doors, six man doors and a triple window. The northern and southern façades use a combination of double and triple windows; the southern elevation also contains two drive-in doors and two man doors. Site Furnishing Community features include landscaping, rain gardens, lighting and a sidewalk system. The developer shall add sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard. Loading Areas, Refuse Area, etc. Service yards, refuse and waste removal, other unsightly areas and truck parking/loading areas are screened from public views by the building, a retaining wall and buffer yard plantings. Lot Frontage and Parking location Access to the site will be gained via Galpin Court, a public street. The property also has frontage on Lyman Boulevard. Parking is distributed around the west and south sides of the building. Less than 50% of the parking will be between the buildings frontage façades and the primary abutting streets of Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard. PUD STANDARDS PROPOSED Building Height 3 Stories / 40 feet 1 Story / 24 feet Building Setback NW-0’ NE-30’ E-0’ S-50’ W-30’ NW-73’ NE-30’ E-47’ S-70’ W-107’ Parking Stalls 103 125 (5 handicap accessible) Parking Setback NW-0’ NE-10’ E-0’ S-50’ W- NW-5’ NE-20’ E-0’ S-20’ W-25’ Hard Surface Coverage 70% Average between the 8 developable lots 79.97% Lot Area 1 acre 3.32 LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for landscaping include 5,311 square feet of landscaped area around the parking lot, 11 landscape islands or peninsulas, 21 trees for the parking lot, and bufferyard plantings along the south property line. The applicant’s proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table: Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 8 Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 5,311 sq. ft. 28,935 sq. ft. Trees/ parking lot 21 overstory trees 21 overstory trees Islands/parking lot 11 islands or peninsulas 6 islands/peninsulas Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for islands/peninsulas in the parking lot area. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the islands/peninsulas in the parking lot to meet minimum landscape requirements. Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard C – south property line, 750’ length 15 overstory trees 37 understory trees 52 shrubs 13 overstory trees 23 understory trees 28 shrubs Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings along the south property line. Staff recommends that the applicant increase the plantings to meet minimum landscape requirements. GRADING, DRAINAGE and EROSION CONTROL The plans propose to grade the site for the new building pad of 961.00 in elevation and a proposed parking lot. At this elevation, stormwater from the building and parking lot will drain toward the proposed catch basins and be conveyed via storm sewer to the existing storm water pond on the west side of the parcel. The storm water pond was previously graded last fall under the Chanhassen West Business park project. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence must be used along the west of the grading area, extend type I silt fence to close the northwest access and utilize one construction entrance to the site. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 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. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. Erosion Control Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 9 Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days All rain gardens and associated infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 should be maintained by the property owner/association or property management company. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City to ensure rain garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall include keeping the rain garden vegetated with non-invasive species and ensuring that the infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from stubs on the north side of the lot. The watermain and municipal sewer lines will be considered private utility lines. The site has previously been assessed for utilities. However, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will still be applicable for the new lot. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health, Carver County and Watershed District. STREETS No public streets are proposed as part of this project. The applicant is proposing two full accesses to the site from the north side of the lot off Galpin Court. As the northeasterly access will service two lots, cross-access easements will need to be obtained and recorded against the lots. The northeasterly access will be the primary access for Lot 1 and will serve as a truck access for Lot 2. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant is proposing lighting of the site through a combination of 25’ pole mounted light fixtures throughout the parking lot, wall mounted light fixtures at the loading docks on the east elevation of the building and architectural light fixtures at the four main entrances. The lighting must be shielded to prevent off-site glare. Lighting shall be high pressure sodium. The proposed location of a monument sign is shown on the east side of the western entrance to the site. No other signage details are currently shown on the plans. Signage must comply with the PUD standards, City Code requirements and would require a separate sign permit application. Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 10 MISCELLANEOUS Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans and permit application are submitted. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. PUD AMENDMENT FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding development, will not overburden the City’s service capabilities and traffic generated from it is within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the City shall consider the development's compliance with the following: 1. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; 2. Consistency with this division; 3. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; 4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 11 5. Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. 6. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance if the PUD Amendment is approved. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for this area. Minor revisions are required and are outlined in the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff and Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following two motions: A. “The Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves the Chanhassen West Business Park PUD Amendment for a 20-foot parking setback from Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park.” B. “The Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves Site Plan #06- 11, for a 49,105 square-foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated February 17, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, landscaping and rain garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall include maintaining rain garden vegetation with non-invasive species and ensuring that the infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. All rain gardens and associated infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be maintained by the property owner/association or property management company. Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 12 2. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm water pond along the west side of the lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 4. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City’s Building Department. 5. Add the latest revision of City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302 and 5302A. 6. The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain per SAC unit, as determined by the Metropolitan Council. 7. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health and Carver County Water Management Area. 8. On the plans show the stop signs per city detail plate # 5217, the driveway aprons per detail #5207 and pedestrian ramps must be constructed per detail plate #5215. 9. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing utilities sewer type, size and class. b. Show all existing storm and sanitary structures rim and invert elevations. c. Add a note to maintain 18-in minimum vertical separation between the watermain and storm sewer intersection on the western car park. d. Revise CB5 to CBMH5. 10. On the grading plan: a. Show all the storm water structures rim elevations. b. Show the EOF. c. Show the actual existing elevation contours for the site. d. Show minimum 75-ft rock construction entrance. e. Extend the silt fence to close off the northwesterly entrance. 11. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the Lots 1 and 2. 12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 13 Type of Slope Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 14. Construction site entrances and exits shall be indicated on plans and shall have maintained rock construction entrances as specified on City of Chanhassen detail plate 5301. 15. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 16. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 17. The accessible parking space at the northwest side of the building must be on the shortest route possible to the northwest entrance. 18. A PIV is required on the building water service. 19. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are submitted. 20. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 21. 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. 22. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. 23. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policies: a. #4-1991 Regarding Notes To Be Included On All Site Plans b. #7-1991 Regarding Pre-fire Drawings c. #29-1991 Regarding Premise Identification d. #34-1993 Regarding Water Service Installation e. #36-1994 Regarding Proper Water Line Sizing f. #40-1995 Regarding Fire Protection Systems g. #06-1991 Regarding Fire Lane Signage h. #52-2005 Regarding Commercial Plan Review Submittal Criteria Eden Trace Site Plan Review Planning Case No. 06-11 April 4 April 10, 2006 Page 14 24. Lighting shall be high-pressure sodium. 25. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show 11 landscaped islands or peninsulas within the parking lot area. 26. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show 15 overstory trees, 37 understory trees, and 52 shrubs along the south property line. 27. Sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard must be constructed. The sidewalks shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs. 28. An architectural articulation shall be incorporated on the northern and southern façades.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. 4. Reduced Copy Site Plan dated 2-16-06. 5. Reduced Copy Photometric Plan dated 2-16-06. 6. Reduced Copy Floor Plan dated 2-16-06. 7. Reduced Copy Entry Elevations dated 2-16-06. 8. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat dated 2-10-06. 9. Reduced Copy Grading Plan dated 2-10-06. 10. Reduced Copy Utility Plan dated 2-10-06. 11. Reduced Copy Construction Details dated 2-10-06. 12. Reduced Copy Preliminary Landscape Plan dated 2-10-06. 13. Reduced Copy Preliminary Landscape Details dated 2-10-06. 14. Memo from Mark Littfin to Josh Metzer dated February 23, 2006 with Fire Code Attachments. 15. Letter to the City of Chanhassen from Carver County Public Works dated March 9, 2006. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-11 chan west business park lot 2\staff report.doc