1k. Minutes*1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dockendorf
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles Folch, Todd
Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman
Ik
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda
with an addition by Councilman Senn under Council Presentations, talking about the Hanus building memo in the
Administrative Packet. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 28-APRIL 1 AS TOBACCO FREE YOUTH DAY.
Mayor Chmiel: This is declaring a proclamation for March 27th thru April 2nd as Tobacco Free Youth Week.
And it reads, Whereas more than 400,000 premature deaths occur each year in the United States from tobacco
related causes. This epidemic is totally preventable and key opportunities for prevention are during childhood
and adolescence; and Whereas, at least 3.1 million adolescents are current smokers and smoking is most common
among 17 and 18 year olds, with about 25% of these young people smoking; and Whereas, nicotine is often the
first drug used by young people who use alcohol, marijuana and harder drugs, and Whereas, cigarette advertising
appears to increase young people's risk of smoking by conveying that smoking has social benefits and that it is
more common than it really is, and Whereas, in Minnesota teenagers were illegally sold over 4 1/2 million packs
of cigarettes in 1991, and Whereas, the most effective preventive programs are community wide ones that
combine education and public policy approaches. Now therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of
Chanhassen, do hereby proclaim March 27th thru April 2nd, 1994 as Tobacco Free Youth Week and urge
citizens to take part in this important week. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
I Councilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #94.36: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the proclamation
declaring the Week of March 27th thru April 2nd, 1994 as Tobacco Free Youth Week. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
II
1
Mayor Chmiel: This evening, I wanted to let you know, for those of you who are on here for some of the items
that may be the later part of our agenda. The Council, the City Council will terminate our Council meeting at
11:00. That is within our By -laws. We normally meet sometimes beyond that but we have been evoking this
because of the fact that we have had many work sessions and eliminating some of the given problems that we've
had. But for those of you who may have things on the agenda that are later on and may take a little longer for
each of the respective items that we have for discussion this evening, I'd suggest that you watch the agenda and
if you feel that it's not going to be there, or be able to be on the agenda, you'll be able to tell by the time on the
clock. So with that I just would like you to be well aware of that fact.
t
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor? I wonder if at some point in the evening, perhaps 9:00 -9:30 we'd be able to
give some indication of where we see things are going also. If that might help.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Church Road 2nd Addition, 6301 Church Road, Greg Reed:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Plans and Specifications
c. Approve of 1994/95 Liquor License Renewals.
e. Approval of Bills
f. City Council Minutes dated March 14, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 2, 1994
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 22, 1994
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated March 10, 1994
g. Resolution #94 -37: Resolution Modifying Previous Annexation, 6200 Cardinal Lane, Gerald and Lynn Cox
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
D. APPROVE REVISED DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FORM.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, is it going to be a long discussion on this?
Councilman Senn: No. In fact I talked to Charles and Dave today. We're going to basically just table this.
There were a number of issues that them and I were starting to discuss but need to finish discussing and there
wasn't any reason or urgency for this to be passed tonight so that's kind of the way. We'd just like to move to
table this.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the revised Development Contract
form. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION:
Mayor Chmiel: We do have the Youth Commission. Is Natalie here this evening? I don't see her. Is there
anyone else wishing to make a presentation? Someone came up to me just prior to the Council meeting and
indicated they'd like to discuss something.
Resident: I would. May I approach?
4
r
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. '
Resident: Mayor, I represent largely the 2nd Addition in Chanhassen Estates.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just sort of, that's on the agenda.
Resident: Yeah, I was told that during the Visitor Presentation I should come up and state my case.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, if it's not on the agenda but it is on the agenda so that will be discussed and you'll have
your opportunity at that time. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none we'll move right along. ,
PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING CHANGING THE HOURS SOLID
WASTE/RECYCLING CAN BE COLLECTED.
Don Ashworth: City Council asked that the hours of collection be modified from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 am. The
City Attorney has drafted that change. Staff made the assumption that you wanted that to apply to residential
properties only and for second and final reading we will have that modification in front of you. Approval of
first reading is recommended with the condition that staff modify that to show residential only.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this time? If seeing none, can I have a
motion to close public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on this item?
Councilman Senn: I move approval. '
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of the City Code
amendment regarding changing the hours that solid waste /recycling can be collected. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously. '
PUBLIC HEARING: AUTHORIZE FILING OF RATE REGULATION, TRIAX CABLEVISION.
Mayor Chmiel: Once again I'd like to open this. This is a public hearing. Don, would you like to address this?
Don Ashworth: FCC rules require that a city provide the cable operator with notification of your intent to carry
out rate regulation. The earliest that we would see the filing of that would be mid -May. However to start the
process you need to formally pass a resolution at this point in time. The Council has a copy of the resolution.
It's in the separate packet that was distributed this afternoon and it's labeled #4. Approval of that resolution is
recommended. '
Mayor Chmiel: And I think that the memo does clarify the fact that if determination is, that you're actually
going to file that resolution, we need to pass this now so in the event we do go with that, we can take hold and '
3
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
move ahead. Or if we still might feel comfortable enough in tying in with the Lake Minnetonka District on
cable television as well. Of the other 12 cities. Is there any discussion?
Councilman Senn: Don, if we file this initial one, now this eats up what? The $2,500.00?
Mayor Chmiel: $2,500.00.
Councilman Senn: The initial application?
Don Ashworth: Well I think for this initial filing we can do that relatively cheaply. When right after our
' meeting the other day with Brian I confirmed, we're looking at potentially $100.00 or $200.00 to carry out the
filing. And again, I will keep the City Council posted as to what we do during our meeting in April and May.
And you again may decide to say, to me, don't file that. But at least this gives the operator the notice that we're
' planning on doing it.
Councilman Senn: And you have to just...at this point?
' Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: And I might strongly suggest that we go this route because I know with discussions that we've
had with the cable company and some of the concerns that we've had and some of the questions we've asked,
the things that we've wanted, we've not gotten so this would put a little more bite into us, back into them. Is
there a motion?
' Councilman Senn: I would move approval.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Resolution #94.38: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize the City to file for
rate regulation with the FCC. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE GRADING.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council. Included in your packet are the award of bids for the mass grading for the
' new Chanhassen Elementary School site. Bids ranged from $694,000.00 on the low end up to $1,021,600.00 on
the high end. The engineer's estimate on this project was $810,000.00. Staff has done a review of the low
bidder, J & K Grading and Trucking out of Shakopee and has found them to be a reliable company. It's staff s
' recommendation that you go with J & K Grading for the bid amount of $694,000.00. And to update you, the
School Board has not accepted bids as of yet. We are still working our a purchase agreement and development
contract with them. They did not want to award bid on that until we had all the documents sent.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Our recommendation is approval conditioned upon the School District similarly
making that award so.
4
r
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: Good. One other thing I'd just like to interject in this as well. I would like to make sure that '
somehow there is a substantial amount of money left in escrow upon completion of this project be finally paid at
the end of that project. And I want a good amount of dollars left in there. I'm not familiar with the contractor.
I'm sure he's a reliable contractor but I know we have had other contractors come in and have not performed
fully and so consequently I'd like to see us do that. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: I have a question. Todd, what's the, it says here as far as the grading costs. That part will '
be assessed against the school district. How much? What percentage?
Don Ashworth: 50 %.
Councilman Senn: 50 %? And that won't change?
Don Ashworth: That will not change. The only part of it that may change is, this is an award for the '
construction and typically you have fees associated with preparation of plans and specs and those kinds of things.
Potentially 6% added to that and then 50% of that then higher number. So let's see.
Councilman Senn: That's all within the same split. ,
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, I'll call a question.
Councilman Mason: Did we get a motion on that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, let's get a motion. I'm moving a little quick.
Councilman Mason: You are in a hurry tonight.
'
Mayor Chmiel: I am. I want to get to some of the real meat here.
'
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of accepting J & K Grading and Trucking for the mass grading of the
new Chanhassen Elementary School and Recreation Facility site.
'
Councilman Senn: Conditioned on.
Councilman Mason: Conditioned on School Board... '
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second. '
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Wing: I was working on, did anybody ask about the discrepancy in the bids?
Councilman Senn: In terms of dollar amounts? '
5
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' Councilman Wing: $694,000.00, $730,000.00, a million, $850,000.00. Every time we take the low bid, we
regret it.
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I was asking.
Councilman Wing: I know. I apologize. What's the difference between the million dollars and the $600,000.00
and the $850,000.00?
Councilman Mason: Oh about $400,000.00.
' Mayor Chmiel: It depends on how busy the contractors are. If they're hungry, they bid low. If they've got
things where they can work it out and they aren't really rushing it.
' Todd Gerhardt: J & K is a smaller company that is a subsidiary of a larger company and if they run short of
trucks or anything, they work together on a project. And they're hungry. And there's not a lot of big projects
going on and this is a very big project.
Councilman Wing: You said those exact same words that were said for Minnewashta Parkway. They're hungry
and da, da, da. I guess I'm a little dissatisfied. I always, and there's nothing we can do about it anyway, right?
You're satisfied with...
Councilman Mason: Not much you can do.
Mayor Chmiel: No. No.
Councilman Senn: Other than Don's suggestion which is hold them for escrow.
' Mayor Chmiel: We just hold more in escrow and that's one of my concerns. That's why I wanted to hit it.
Okay, all those in favor.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Charles wanted to.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Charles.
Charles Folch: It is hard to know what effects, exactly what effects certain contract bids but I know one thing
that certainly does is uncertainty with what's involved in the project. I know the larger company that is involved
in this company has performed a lot of work around the area. In fact they have the recent mass grading contract
' down on the Chanhassen Business Center, just south of this project area so they're familiar with the Chan soil
conditions and what needs to be dealt with in doing this type of work in this area so that may have also had an
effect in their feeling comfortable to provide the cost effective bid for the project.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Resolution #94 -39: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to award the bid for mass
grading of the Chanhassen Elementary School/Recreation facilities to J & K Grading and Trucking in the
amount of $694,000.00 with the condition that the District #112 School Board also approve the bid and
that an adequate amount be held in escrow to insure the completion of the project. All voted in favor and
6
r
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
the motion carried unanimously. '
REQUEST FOR AN OFF -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE, 800 WEST 78TH STREET,
BYERLY'S: AND OPTIONS FOR REZONING. '
Don Ashworth: The City Council acted to table the request for Byerly's off -sale liquor license at our last City
Council meeting. The concern was the interpretation by the City Attorney's office that the phrase retail, '
specialty retail did include off -sale liquor and the concern was, with that interpretation potentially we would be
opening up a number of other areas to potential applications for off -sale liquor licenses. The City Council did
have a work session to talk about this issue. One of the, there were two suggested modifications. One would be
to establish a distance between off -sale stores and the number that we looked at was 500 feet. If you did that, ,
you virtually could not have an additional off -sale store at least in the BG zone, which is what the Council had
showed concern for. The second option would be to actually limit the total number of licenses. So you
currently have, 3 licenses and so if you limit it to 4 or 5. If you limit it to 5 and approve Byerly's, then there'd '
be one more out. If you limit it to 4 and approve Byerly's, then that would be it. And at least myself, I
continue to believe that that's probably a better option than the 500 foot option because even though there would
be no additional sites within the BG zone, there are other zones out there such as central business district, which
means that you could, even with the 500 foot requirement, you potentially could get an application from the ,
Kenny's site. The current vacant lot adjacent to the medical center. The site adjacent to Abra. A rezoning of
what I refer to as the office complex that would be on the north side of Highway 5. So I mean I think there's a
number of other areas that by limiting the number of stores to 4, you would not have that concern. But staff has
drafted it in both fashions. Did I have you draft the other one or not?
Roger Knutson: I just drafted the one Don.
Don Ashworth: Okay. Well, this is very similar to the last action so it's an ordinance. It requires two readings.
If you placed either of those two on first reading or you put it in on first reading and with the condition that it
be modified to have no more than 4 stores, that would be a legal action you could take. Or you could approve '
the draft as presented by the City Attorney. Staff believes that either really accomplished what you were looking
at and I should conclude by saying, staff continues to recommend approval of the Byerly's off -sale request.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here this evening wishes to address this? If not, we'll bring it back to Council. '
Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think the work session ... I was happy with the 500 feet. I guess my question then and now '
would be, why don't we do both. I don't care what the numbers necessarily. Whether it's 4 or 5, 6, 7 or 8 but
I'd like to go with the 500 feet_ Not to exceed 6 licenses.
Councilman Mason: I think 6 is a little high. I'm just throwing that out. I mean how many. '
Councilman Wing: I'll amend my motion. '
Councilman Mason: Well no, sure. I mean how many do we have. We have 3 now right?
Councilman Senn: And Byerly's would be 4 if that goes ahead. So if you have 5, that would leave room for ,
one more. Or 4 would limit it to what we've got.
k
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' Councilman Mason: I guess I'm happy with 4 or 5 personally.
Councilman Wing: But this city wide, right?
' Councilman Mason: Yes. If we say 4 or 5, we're saying the whole city.
Mayor Chmiel: Well you know as we continually grow and as this need, if there is a need for additional, this
' can also be changed by Council as well at that particular time. So I think we would be in proper direction to
probably go to a 5.
L
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I can live with 5. And would that then include the 500 feet?
Councilman Wing: I agree with Mike. Whatever number he's happy with.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Okay, so the 500 feet and/or.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, so the 500 is ... to the BG. Yeah, that's kind of the way it's come back to because the
way Don is talking about 4, he's talking in the BG zone. And what I'm hearing you say I think is 500 feet
anywhere.
Councilman Wing: City wide with a limit of 5.
Councilman Senn: Right, I agree.
Councilman Mason: I don't have any trouble with that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a discussion going between our City Attorney and our Manager.
Don Ashworth: Again I just wanted to make sure the City Council is aware that you have allowed an off sale
store in a BN designation, which means that if you would receive an application. If you leave with one
additional and you would receive an application for an off sale store adjacent to Q, off of Lake Drive. Across
the street from the church. You would find it very difficult to be able to deny that license request. If they made
an application over by Abra, you would have a difficult time denying that request. I would go with the Mayor
in terms of saying, if somebody came in and if it really was a use on a particular site that you felt comfortable
with, then at that time modify it to go from 4 to 5. But right now you have too many zones that I do not
believe the Council would want to see an off sale store anywhere in that BH zone. Anywhere in that BN zone.
Councilman Senn: I think you missed Don when we were talking and that was, rather than 500 feet, specifically
referencing the BG zone. Make it 500 feet period. More or less any zone. More or less cannot be within 500
feet of each other. On that basis, would you not then eliminate most of those?
Don Ashworth: No. Let's say across from the church on Lake Drive. That would be more than 500 feet from
Cheers. Abra would be more than 500 feet. Kenny's would be more than 500 feet.
Councilman Mason: So let's just limit it to 4 then.
H
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Don Ashworth: Now you could go 1,000 feet or 2,000 then that would take care of it but I mean. 1
Councilman Mason: Well that ends up being a little frivolous then doesn't it Roger? I mean if somebody wants
to challenge that. '
Roger Knutson: You'd have, see how those numbers work and you want to take a map and sit down and work
with the ordinance ... a particular number but I'd say, some communities, for example Burnsville have a mile '
spacing. But then Burnsville is laid out completely different than the city of Chanhassen.
Councilman Mason: Well we can solve the whole issue by just limiting it to 4, right? I mean that takes cane of
it. '
Roger Knutson: Then you're done.
Councilman Senn: So you need kind of a double, if I'm understanding it, you need a double motion basically. '
One motion being that we amend, make the amendments under first reading to come back with second reading
which would limit licenses to 4. And secondly, that we approve the Byerly's one going forward as the fourth.
Don Ashworth: Convect. '
Councilman Wing: But the 500 stays in? '
Councilman Mason: The 500's immaterial. Or should we still have that in there?
Roger Knutson: I would leave the 500 in. It gives someone double pause. '
Councilman Senn: Okay, and leave the 500 in. So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second. Both motions. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of an ordinance
amendment limiting the number of off -sale liquor licenses to four (4) and approving the application for an
off -sale liquor license from Byerly Beverages, Inc. conditioned upon the following: '
1. Submittal of a $3,000.00 surety bond which will expire on April 30, 1995.
2. Submittal of liquor liability insurance meeting minimum state requirements which will expire on April 30, '
1995.
3. Submittal of the $280.00 liquor license fee. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
VARIANCE TO CITY CODE REGARDING SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WE VILLAGE H EIGHT
C ENTER, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS SECOND ADDITIO CHARLIE JAMES.
9
i
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members. The applicant is requesting a variance from the city code which
permits only an 80 square foot sign per business wall with street frontage and for signage on the non street
frontage which would be the west elevation of the Byerly's building and the retail center. Staff, in reviewing
' this application, believes that there is ... granting relief from our restriction. We've compared this signage with the
larger users in the immediate area immediately across the street and also with the Chan Bowl, which is in the
BG district. Because the two projects immediately across the street were PUD's, we tried to discount them but
if we looked at it compared to the BG district, the amount of signage that they would have would be much
greater than what is being requested. So we took an average of all the signage and when we applied that
average to their building, their request seemed reasonable. Therefore staff is recommending approval of their
variance request except for the western elevation of the Byerly's building itself. We just would like to note
' under condition 9 that the Planning Commission added this. It is in fact adding another variance to the sign
variances because we only permit two separate signs, the monument or the pylon signs on the site and this would
in fact create a third one.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone from Charlie James, is he here this evening?
Todd Gerhardt: He's out in the hall.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Charles James, he's standing walking around out there.
Councilman Mason: He can't believe he's on already.
Mayor Chmiel: It's showtime. You're on.
' Councilman Mason: We're moving along tonight Charlie.
Mayor Chmiel: We're talking about the variance to the city code regarding the signage.
Charlie James: I'm sorry. I saw that you had two public hearings.
' Mayor Chmiel: We did. But we've gone through them.
Charlie James: Okay. Well then I will try to be.
' Mayor Chmiel: Much to our surprise as well.
Charlie James: I'll try to be uncharacteristically brief. I guess basically I'd like to begin by explaining briefly
' how we got to where we're at. This first is a photocopy from your existing zoning ordinance that pertains to
signs and you see the arrow at the heading. This is in the highway and general business district and specifically
in the area that pertains to wall business signs. I guess the first thing I wanted to point out is that the code is
' unclear and somewhat ambiguous. There's a mixture here of the singular and the plural. They talk about wall
business signs. Then they talk about the total of all wall mounted signs display area shall not exceed 15% of the
total area of the building wall upon which the signs, plural, are mounted. Then they go on to say that no
individual sign could exceed 80 square feet. Well we had a lot of difficulty with the interpretation of this and
we thought that you were allowed 15% as long as no individual sign was greater than 15, or 80 square feet. I'm
sorry. And then this is a copy that sort of further buttresses that interpretation. This is some notes that were
prepared by the city here as a part of the Target project. You'll notice at the bottom here, it says wall signs are
10
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
permitted on no more than two street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not
'
exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which "the signs ", plural, are mounted. So really what the
issue then is we can meet the ordinance of this project in terms of the percentage of wall area covered but where
we have difficulty is in the 80 square foot maximum and here's a further illustration. I think this might be the
smoking gun here of the problem with the code. This is a quote at the top here from the code. 15% of the total
,
area of the building wall upon which the signs, plural, are mounted. Then it goes on to say, no individual sign
shall exceed 80 square feet in sign display areas. So if you take the 80 square feet that's provided for in your
code and you divide that by 15 %, you'd see that what the code contemplated was a building who's wall area
'
would not exceed 533 square feet. And this would be the equivalent of a 16 foot tall building that's 32 feet
wide. So I would—that your code was perhaps drawn up more in mind with small shops downtown on main
street, close to the curb and really didn't anticipate big box users and buildings that would tend to be set back
'
further from the sidewalk and from the street. What we're seeking then is we have submitted to staff a pylon
sign. The code allows one pylon sign, one monument sign. We submitted drawings for those that as submitted,
meet exactly the terms and conditions of the code. And we feel that the rest of the retail center can live within
this 80 square foot maximum area. Where we have problems is on the Byerly's alone. The Byerly's will
'
constitute 65% of this total project and that's the area where, if we were to give to them the signage that's
appropriate for a building of that scale, that's where we run afoul of this 80 square foot issue. I point out that if
this variance is granted, what the variance in effect would do would place us in conformity with our neighbors.
'
Target doesn't meet this 80 square foot thing. Market Square does not meet it and furthermore, I believe that
the numbers that were provided to you in your staff report about the square footage of Target, it talks about I
believe 206 or 207 square feet as being the total on their building. That is the Target and the insignia only and
'
the word Pharmacy is not included in that total. And similarly I was going to ask Bob whether the Open 24
Hours, there are signs on 3 sides of Festival and I didn't know whether the Open 24 Hours was included in those
totals.
'
Bob Generous: Just the Festival.
Charlie James: Okay, just the Festival. So if you add those additional signs in, you could see that that would '
affect the variances on the spread sheet that staff prepared and would further suggest that we are, what we're
asking is in conformity with our neighbors and with the district that we're in. We went to the Planning
Commission. I had to kind of do this spread sheet here because at the end of the evening everything had to get '
squeezed down son of to a funnel of consensus but I wanted to show you here that even amongst the members
of the Planning Commission there was a great deal of diversity of opinion as to what was acceptable and what
was not acceptable on what we had proposed. I hope I have the, I took notes and I hope I have the right names '
here.
Mayor Chmiel: If you don't, we do because we have all the Minutes of that particular meeting.
Charlie James: Okay. Well I'll just touch on this briefly. With regard to the sign in the northwest corner that '
says Byerly's, we had a no, no, an overall the thing was okay, most of it's nice. In this instance this was, if
there was no specific comment about that particular side of the building. This was sort of an opening remark ,
and there was no comments here. On the south elevation of the main Byerly's logo above the door that's
proposed, there was a remark to reduce it by 75 %. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. That it was fine the way it was.
And then we really get into some interesting things here. With Wine and Spirits we have yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
The feeling there was that was a business within a business. And then within Fine Foods, that question of is that
referring to the restaurant or is that referring to the groceries and is that a business within a business raised some
questions here. But we had a no, a yes, a yes, a yes, a yes. And then when we got down to 24 Hours we had a
11
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
1 no, a yes, a yes, a no, a yes, a no and then when we go to the east side of the building, we didn't seem to have
some, a little bit of variance there. We had some remarks that it should be smaller and that was subsequently
modified. That comment to go along with some other people that suggested substituting the wall signage for a
monument. And we also had a yes and a yes saying it was okay the way it was. And then as far as the Fine
' Foods and 24 Hours on that elevation we had quite a variance there. Yes and yes and yes and no. And then the
pylon, almost across the board we had lower, lower, lower, lower but try to save the design. There was some
concern that it was very attractive and scaled properly the way it was submitted and that might be affected if it
was dropped lower. And a comment that they weren't sure. The height could be an issue but they weren't sure.
The reason that, and so the reason I'm showing you this is to say that then at the end of the day there was a lot
of horse trading that went on to try to pull this together and the amendments here or this, I don't know what to
call that. The recommendations of the Planning Commission. And from our position we have an issue when all
these things sort of got blended together and the vote was 4 to 2 and Mr. Conrad said quote that they, he wasn't
comfortable with the gerry rigging of the signage or tinkering with design. And Rod said not comfortable with
picking everything apart. In looking at this list here, we tried to find those elements that were clearly consistent
' all the way across and what that came to was the signage on this side of the building here, which tonight we
would agree to remove. That'd be the signage on the west elevation of Byerly's. And the other thing was to
lower the monument. I'm sorry, lower the pylon. Here's the monument that we proposed. This would be built
' out of the same brick as the rest of the center. These would be non - illuminated solid brass cut out letters. And
then these would be tenant identification and it also would have some back illumination. And that's all drawn to
the code. This was the pylon as we originally presented it and drew it. It's drawn to the code. As it's shown
here we have 64 square foot of signage area, including the brick behind the Byerly's. It's in essence the 64
' square feet is measured in this area here, although the Byerly's letters are no more than 5'4" tall. And a
substantial amount of the volume of the sign or the height of the sign is air. So it's not like it's this solid thing
and I guess where we run into a problem with starting to lower this, and I have a drawing tonight where we
have made an effort to lower that but I want to show you the problems if we start to do that. You start to all of
a sudden to lose the proportion and the scale of this arch in relationship to some of the design elements of the
building and at some point this arch kind of becomes so close to the ground that it really loses it's appeal as a
' design feature. There's something about the legginess or height of this arch I think that would be lost if we
started doing this. By contrast, this is what's over at Target. I couldn't tell whether this was, this is shown at
34 but in the narrative to their project it's said to be 36 feet high but in any event, 14 to 16 feet taller than what
we're proposing. The sign area up here is 144 square feet. Or approximately 80 square feet or more than twice
' what we're proposing here. It's 144 square feet and 34 feet as opposed to 64 square feet and what we're going
to show you here now is a new drawing for that. Okay, what we've drawn here is essentially the monument and
you can see we've tried to show the brass letters in here and that didn't seem to be an issue at the Planning
Commission. Here's the pylon design and we've cut 2 feet off that. Took a course of brick off the top of the
corbeling area here and cut 2 foot off of the overall height of that. So I guess what we're proposing tonight is
that we'd be willing to, number one. Remove the sign. Okay.
' John Meyers: To put things in perspective. This is 18 feet. The Target sign's 34. This is essentially half in
height.
Councilman Wing: It's half of what?
John Meyers: The Target sign across the street is 34 feet. It might be 36. We note the one plan says 34. This
is 18. That site is 36. Just for a perspective.
Charlie James: And their sign is solid and this is an ... or air that you see through so. About half our sign is air
12
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
and so am I, I guess. If I hadn't have said it, you would have.
John Meyers: One of the comments from the Planning Commission. There was a Byerly's sign that would have
faced west over the top of the other shops. One of the comments was, they didn't think the visibility would be
good from Powers Boulevard. We've taken that one out. The side, part of the building remains the same as we
presented to the Planning Commission and the east side of the building remains the same. To put things in a
little better perspective, this is an artist rendering of the store. Of this design. Humbly in my opinion, I don't
think anything here is out of proportion in any way. It's obviously not over signed. The signs that we've got on
there basically describe who we are a little bit to the extent we feel it's necessary for the marketplace. The
Open 24 Hours we feel is important. I know quite a few people already have commented they didn't know we
were open 24 hours. The restaurant, that's important to us. But I don't think anything on here is out of
proportion. So we tried to come back from the Planning Commission... some of the points that they had and tried
to find a middle ground.
Charlie James: So in summary I guess we feel that the sign ordinance as it pertains to big box users needs some
tweaking or adjustment. And second of all, we've tried to take those, some of those items that seem to be the
most, have the most uniform comments at the Planning Commission, realizing that there was a great diversity in
opinion there as to what should go on and what should come off. But in those areas in which there was
uniformity, we tried to speak and address to those issues and hence we have removed the sign here and
attempted to our pylon signs...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well on the, I guess when this comes to us, a picture is worth a thousand words and I'd like
to see a picture of Byerly's with our ordinance and a picture of Byerly's with what they're asking. I sat through
the Planning Commission and I listened to that debate for how long? Every time I woke up they're still talking
about these same numbers. If we take 837 square feet and divide it by .15 which comes up with this and this. I
didn't know what they were talking about then and I don't know what you're talking about now. I just want to
see, here's our ordinance and the sign would be this big and here's what we're proposing the variance and here's
what it's going to look like. So to repeat myself, a picture's worth a thousand words or in this case, ten or
twenty thousand words between the Planning Commission and Charlie and then it's done.
Charlie James: This is a quarter inch. I'm sorry, 1/8 inch scale. So 8 feet by 10 foot would probably be.
Councilman Senn: We just don't have anything that shows us what the code allows.
Councilman Wing: We don't have a picture of the code and we've got a picture of what the variance is going to
be so I can't compare it. Also the pylon sign compared to the elevations at Target and there's a vast difference
here and they were designed for different reasons. If we lowered Target, they disappeared altogether and went
below the road. In this case we've got an enormous monument right on an open road with a lot of visibility to
the store so I have no trouble with Charlie's request. I don't have any trouble with the signs on the north side.
I mean a blue Byerly's has never been offensive to me. We've gotten into so much debate on this, it's
frustrating but I don't have the pictures to show me what the difference is and I think should have provided a
picture of both or should have asked you to provide the difference. A picture of what you're required to do and
what you're requesting to do. Because it means nothing. As far as these pylons go, we have no elevations. No
pictures of how they fit into the road. Where they sit on there. There's a picture of a parking lot. A circle with
an arrow pointing to the pylon sign. Where it's going to be. So to make a decision based on what we've got is
13
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
really pretty weak. Other than I guess, the one thing I did get out of the Planning Commission was the issue of
the height and the massiveness of the monument sign. So I guess I personally favored, here we go against the
commission. I personally favored a sign on the east side versus that monument they wanted. I thought that
' looked better and subtle. So here we go. They put all the time and effort in and then I sort of say, well what's
the difference. I would go along with all the recommendations. I guess I would be pleased to accept this as it is
and I would leave the monument at the 10 foot level. I don't think West 78th Street needs those enormous
monument signs. I think that would be a mistake to even start that. With all due respect to Target and I hope
' with forthcoming stores, we do the same thing. Retain the size and limit the monument signs going up. They're
not going to be hurting for advertising and visibility here in any manner so I don't think we'll impact them.
These other issues, I think their variance request is reasonable and I don't have any comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Where are you with the height of the pylon sign?
Councilman Wing: The Planning Commission recommendation.
1
Councilman Mason: The 10 feet?
Councilman Wing: Because they really tried to look at that and after listening to Jeff and that group that are
really the artists, I kind of had to agree with them. His concern about the visibility of this little blue sign east
and west didn't impact me at all and I'd rather have those signs than the monument signs.
Councilman Mason: What, Kate or Bob, what's the height of the monument at Market Square?
Bob Generous: 12 feet.
Councilman Mason: And we're saying, okay. So this gives them a 12 foot high monument then.
Mayor Chmiel: This is 10. The recommendation by Planning Commission.
Councilman Mason: Well, but that isn't what's on.
Councilman Senn: It's says here on 7 of the Planning Commission's recommendation to limit it to 10.
Councilman Mason: Yeah but that's for the pylon. How about the monument?
Bob Generous: No, the monument would be 8 foot.
Councilman Wing: That's the middle one with the gold letters.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Councilman Wing: This is the one on West 78th Street at the main entrance. The pylon sign.
Councilman Mason: Okay but the wording in this says, the monument height shall be the same as the Target
and Market Square monuments.... Well but that doesn't jive then.
14
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Kate Aanenson: Which is 8?
Councilman Mason: Well you just told me the Market Square one was.
Bob Generous: They were talking about the monument on Kerber. That they're proposing changing the wall
sign to a monument sign and they said that one should be the same height as the one that's for Target.
Councilman Wing: That's the monument sign on the east side. I'm talking about the pylon sign.
Councilman Mason: Right. Right, I understand that.
Councilman Senn: So you're talking about 2 monuments.
Councilman Mason: Byerly's is talking about 2 monuments.
John Meyers: There is no monument on the east side.
Councilman Mason: You're talking about one monument right? And one pylon.
John Meyers: Well there's one monument for the center...
Councilman Mason: Right.
John Meyers: The Planning Commission suggested.
Councilman Wing: Where are we Charlie?
Charlie James: Okay, I'm sorry.
Councilman Mason: I'm confused then.
Charlie James: Let's see if I can help you here. Right here, that little line there. That is where the monument
would go and that's right across, that's at the stop light now and it sort of identifies for people that are stopped
there, who's up there.
Councilman Mason: Sure. Sure.
Charlie James: Because we're going to be about 10 or 20 feet above the level of this intersection here. We're
at 982 and this is 954. And then we were going to put the pylon sign right up here. That's what was met with
some shrubs at the base of it. And that was the other reason to have it up on legs is that we have a big planting
bed underneath it and we wanted some design reference to these large colonnades and arches that we have up
here. And what we found was, when we started cutting the legs off of that monument combined with the shrubs
and the trees underneath it.
John Meyers: The pylon.
Charlie James: I'm sorry. Of the pylon. That this started to look like this little kind of meek arch over the
15
F]
r
I
iy
I
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' ground and so that's why when we looked at it and looked at trying to cut it down, the architect looked at trying
to cut it down to 12 feet. Or 14 feet and if that was the case, we need to be back in here with a different design
because the arch just looks, there isn't enough spring to the arch.
' John Meyers: The 20 feet was the code for the pylon.
Charlie James: So we're actually.
t John Meyers: So we're going below what the code is for that monument.
' Councilman Mason: And you're asking for 12 feet on that right?
Charlie James: No, 18.
' Councilman Mason: 18, okay. I'm getting it straight.
John Meyers: It's allowed to be 20 and they said could you make it smaller.
Charlie James: The pylon and the monument which are drawn in your packets tonight are drawn according to
the code. That's what we had given the Planning Commission. And they wanted to see the pylon lowered. So
we studied that and looked at it and decided that if it gets much lower, there's no point in having it up on legs.
It becomes a solid plank, more like Target's got.
Councilman Wing: Kate, why did they want it lowered? Or Bob. I mean that was a big issue that night.
' Kate Aanenson: I think part of it was the visibility of the Byerly's. You could already see it from TH 5 and the
pylon sign kind of...
' Councilman Wing: There was no need for that mass there?
Bob Generous: That was their feeling, yes. They were looking at the streetscape when you're looking down
' West 78th.
Councilman Wing: And again we have nothing to look at to show us what this would look like. How it would
' impact that area. So if we go small, we know we're not hurting anything. If we go large, we have no picture to
compare it to. No elevations. No sight lines. I've got, oh excuse me.
Councilman Mason: No, that's okay. Okay, and I now have the pylon thing straight in my mind. I'm still
' confused about if you folks are saying an 8 foot monument right? 8 foot tall? But yet ... right. Charlie, is that
right with the monument? 8 foot?
' Charlie James: That's what the code is. No higher than 8 feet for a monument.
Councilman Mason: But this, in our report on page 8, staff recommendation says, monument height shall be the
same as Target and Market Square monuments...
Bob Generous: That's what the Planning Commission said.
1 16
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: Well we've got, okay. This is what, okay. We need to clear this up then.
Kate Aanenson: Just put 8 foot.
Charlie James: This is the monument drawn to 8 feet high.
Councilman Mason: And you're talking about 8 feet and that's what you want that to be? Alright.
Charlie James: Now here's the pylon which we've redrawn at 18 and my comment was, but that's what these
black lines are here. But my comment was that if you start to, this is a design thing and I had the feeling at the
Planning Commission that someone made the comment, I think to a design change and what we were trying to
do is have a, but as you start bringing it, keep in mind now there's a planting bed underneath this and this arch
is about 8 feet high-so by the time you add shrubs and things, at some point the thing loses it's proportions and
so if we came down from the top, that'd be 8 foot. Here would be about 10 foot. You see what I mean? Here
is where about 10 feet would be from the top down. The point there was, that there was a planting bed at the
base of that, you might as well not have the arch at all. You're not going to see it. It disappears with the
design reference to the building so the idea was to get the arch up to set the tone and then we've got the same
corbeling here that appears all along the roofline of the building and the same thing here. The same brick and
that was the reason for that. And so we tried to lower this down without unduly affecting the proportions and
keeping in mind that there'd be some 2 to 3 foot high shrubs underneath this thing.
John Meyers: ...what the code allows for the district for a pylon, correct?
Charlie James: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well I kind of feel like we're caught between a rock and a hard spot on the pylon. So I
guess I'm done for now but I'm going to want to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: If it's just questions, I don't have any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any concerns over the size of the pylon?
Councilman Senn: I don't know, with the design I really don't mind the pylon as long as it's within the
ordinance requirements. I don't like the monument, whether it is or isn't in the ordinance requirements. As far
as the overall signage, I've been relatively critical of some of it downtown and ... I really think we should hold
this signage to the ordinance. This isn't a PUD. We wanted a PUD. They didn't want a PUD. Now they want
the benefits of a PUD and I don't really see that. The other places in the PUD where we exceeded the
ordinance, not by this much but lesser amounts, were part of a PUD and a negotiation process that involved a
whole bunch of things. We don't have that negotiation process here and I think basically the ordinance
limitation should be adhered to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
17
r
i
1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: Can I?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
' Councilman Mason: Mark, just for clarification. Would you state again why you think the ordinance should be
adhered to?
' Councilman Senn: The ordinance as far as it exists right now has been pretty much kept in place other than for
PUD's. Okay. PUD's have a very definite reason to them. They bring both parties to the table to resolve a
whole bunch of things. Okay. In that process if we give up a little bit on signage or something that's part of a
negotiation process but also the city is able to get certain things through the PUD process that they can't get
through normal ordinances, okay. To me either opt for it or you don't opt for it and you don't opt out of it and
then come back later and say, but we want these elements of it. Because these are the ones that benefit us. I
just, I think looking at the overall amount of square footage being requested or suggested, I think it's excessive
' and I think that can be clearly seen just looking at the percentages there that the staff came up with and I'm not
going to use Chan Bowl as any kind of a comparison because that was done ions ago before any of this was in
place. And I think we've all commented on that and would like to see a change and it probably will be someday
' but looking at the other ones, I mean the—talking a lot lower percentages than 6.6 and 5.7 and combined, I'd
hate to see what that is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Bob, a question. What is the elevation of 78th Street as opposed to the location of this
particular pylon? Two different elevations.
Bob Generous: You mean the contour? I looked at it from Kerber and there's a 7 foot difference but I didn't
' look at it from the road over. From the base and where the, the base of this and where the intersection of
Kerber and West 78th, there's a 7 foot elevation change down.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Charlie could probably respond to that.
Mayor Chmiel: Charlie.
Charlie James: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to address, if I may Councilman Senn's remarks about us
' wanting to have the best of both worlds and not coming in as a PUD but wanting the benefits of the PUD. I
guess I maybe need to remind the Council here that we came in and our intent was to meet the ordinance and at
the time that we came in, we even came in with a landscape plan at that point that exceeded what was currently
on your books but was a standard that was done by Target. Subsequently we went even higher than that.
Voluntarily I met with people from Hoisington. I've met with your tree committee. I've had the Planning
Commission input on this. Our landscaping on this far and above exceeds anything that would be required under
your existing ordinance. We meet or exceed all of the things that were discussed at the Vision 2000 meeting
' and the Highway corridor thing. We voluntarily incorporated those things into this project even though they're
not written into the code or the law yet. The quality of the finishes on this project far and above exceed
anything in my opinion that has been done in Chanhassen I mean but it is consistent with the City Hall and the
bank and some of the other buildings on this side of the street. And not just the overall site landscaping but the
landscaping along the parking lot voluntarily, not by code but by our cooperation with the city, far and above
exceeds anything that this city's ever done in the past. You've never had a developer that's agreed to landscape
18
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
as much of the interior of the parking lot as I have, and there's been no gun at my head here. There's been a ,
sincere wish to work with the city on this so I guess I would submit that the city has got a very well conceived
and well designed project that far and above exceeds any of the codes or anything that are currently on the book.
And we did that without a PUD. We did that because we wanted a nice project and so I think you got that ,
without having to extort us or whatever through a PUD process and so this sign thing unfortunately came up as
part of an honest, just misinterpretation of the code. We looked around us and saw what was happening with
Target and with Market Square and all we're asking is that we would be consistent with them. And also I would ,
point out that there were references just made to the percentages that are in the staff report. I would call your
attention once more to the fact that Bob has confirmed what I had suspected. That those percentages do not
include the sign that says Pharmacy on Target and they do not include the Open 24 Hours sign that's on '
Festival. So if you add those square footages in the disparity there would narrow and you can see that we're
quite consistent with our neighbors.
Councilman Mason: John, could you take that blueprint off there please? I mean take the whole thing off so I ,
can see the picture.
John Meyers: You want the rendering? I
Councilman Mason: Yeah. Are you, how important is that picture to you? I mean can you trace over about
what the Byerly's would look like with it smaller? Do you mind on that or don't you want to do that on that?
Charlie James: I did that on this one. i
Councilman Mason: Well I know but. '
Charlie James: This is one where if you get those 80 square feet it would be basically on this scale it'd be an
inch by an inch and a quarter. Yes. If it was an 80 square foot sign on this size drawing it would be an inch by
an inch and a quarter would be 80 square feet.
John Meyers: Basically this B, basically this B is close to 80 square feet. One of the arguments, unfortunately
one of the things we need to do and we tried to be up front about this. We could build 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
signs. One sign says B. One sign ways Y. One sign says E. I mean that's where we're going. It just.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, that's, I. ,
Charlie James: That's what I'm trying to say. We've got a problem with the code and we wanted you to kind
of look at the gestalt of the whole thing here and not be pressured to write a whole code around us and then we
submitted this and then we tried to be responsive to those things again, even though the things that they've asked ,
us to respond to are things that are allowed under the code. They haven't asked us to respond to the variance
part of the thing. They've asked us to respond to those things that are clearly permitted under the code and
we've tried to address that. '
John Meyers: This is about 18 x 6.
Bob Generous: Mike, if you look at the Open, the Fine Foods, the sign on the west side. That's about 72 '
square feet. No, the two of them together.
19
1
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: Yeah I.
Councilman Wing: Why don't I throw something out here.
Councilman Mason: Oh please do.
Councilman Wing: If there's a problem with our ordinance, I think we should look at it. Staff's on record
numerous times stating that it does not fit nor is it appropriate for the larger buildings. I'll take your word for it.
Planning Commission acknowledged that. Charlie claims that's the case. I don't care about his claims for
Target. That's irrelevant... however, I will move approval of this. What am I approving?
Mayor Chmiel: Page 7.
' Councilman Wing: I'd make a motion to approve this sign variance with all 11 items with one exception. That
number 7 will be changed to a pylon sign shall be limited to a height of not to exceed 12 feet, just as a
compromise. I have no, nothing to base that on. We have no pictures. We have no knowledge whatsoever of
' that sign and to approve a sign without even a picture of it with no idea what it looks like or how it fits on that
comer. Even to go to 12 feet I think is excessive so my motion would be 1 thru 11, with the exception of
number 7 which would be a monument not to exceed, a pylon. A pylon not to exceed 12 feet.
' Councilman Mason: Does that then include that number 9 should state the monument height shall be 8 feet and
we would strike the, shall be the same as Target and Market Square monuments?
Councilman Wing: Yes. I would accept that as a friendly amendment.
Councilman Mason: I'm okay with that. Yeah, I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: I just, quick comment. I understand where I think that Mr. James feels he's kind of
' caught, and I can also see aesthetically where if that Byerly's sign was that much smaller than it's rendered
there, it wouldn't look as good as it does right now. And I can accept that. I take a little hombrage with some
of the comments about the direction we're headed here but I guess that's water over the dam.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not.
' John Meyers: Can I ask? You took out 24 Hours? Open 24 Hours.
Councilman Wing: Yes. That's what you heard at the Planning Commission and I'm going to go along with
that recommendation.
John Meyers: What we're asking for is the 24 Hours, the Fine Foods on that wall. Festival Foods across the
street has it.
f Councilman Wing: That's great. I know. At Planning Commission I heard that discussion go at length and
they didn't like the sound or they felt it was irrelevant for that store.
20
i
t
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
John Meyers: It may be irrelevant to the Planning Commission but we've got $6 to $10 million in a building.
I'd like people to know we're open 24 hours. Your city manager for one, I'll use him as an example, said I
didn't know you were open 24 hours. For us that's an issue. I mean unfortunately it's a big issue for us.
Mayor Chmiel: I can understand some of the concerns that you have. But by word of mouth probably spreads
as much as anything else as well. And that Open 24 Hours is on the Festival building which is on the east side
of that building and I guess I don't, and the only reason I noticed that is after I read this and I was looking at
their's. I did notice that 24 Hours. But prior to that I really didn't, it didn't ring my bell let's say.
'
Charlie James: The Planning Commission on that, on the 24 Hours was evenly divided. Nancy was no. Jeff
was yes. Matt was yes. Ladd was no. Rod was yes and Joe was no on the 24 hour sign. I mean they went
through all these.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
'
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just raise a question. Is the concern about the amount of signage? I think
that's what you should, what I would recommend that you concern yourself with. Not the content of what the
sign says so much as how much it is.
'
Councilman Senn: Well except when you get into the request, you start exceeding the requirement, you have to
ask what it's going to be.
'
Roger Knutson: The concern is how much signage do they have. Just for example, if they wanted to eliminate,
they don't but eliminate Byerly's and put Open 24 Hours in it's place.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I've said I think there's too much signage. Eliminating the 24 Hours helps. I
don't have a problem with the big Byerly's. I don't have a problem with Fine Foods. I don't have a problem
with the pylon. I don't have a problem with the pylon being a little larger but there's no way you're going to
get me to support the monument down on the corner.
Councilman Wing: What if we add the 24 Hours and what do you want done with the monument?
Councilman Senn: I feel these monuments simply is advertising down by the corner.
John Meyers: The small monument?
,
Charlie James: There's no Byerly's identification on it. That's simply the mall tenants. There's no Byerly's...
,
Roger Knutson: What I was suggesting, for example, and I don't know that they want to do this but if they
wanted to remove the Wine and Spirits...
John Meyers: Say that again?
Roger Knutson: Did it say Wine and Spirits? I can't read it.
John Meyers: See, they're not big signs...When the Planning Commission came back and said here's the things
that we found obnoxious, and we tried to scale them back and one group wanted, and they want us to jump on
21
LI
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
an example. One group wanted a monument sign. They wanted us to take down the wall sign on this side and
put up a 10 foot monument on this side. I mean I think practically speaking, we don't want to block the
visibility for cars coming in and out of this back entrance and trucks and so forth. It just didn't seem to make a
lot of sense. We can work with you on the pylon down here. Charlie was, 20 feet which is what the code says.
' They said make it a little smaller. We went to 18. Design wise it might work at 16. I've got to be honest with
you, at 12 feet, if I'm 7 feet above up here, and it's only a 10 foot sign down here ... to 12, 1 don't know how
much you're going to see it.
' Councilman Wing: Mark, the 24 Hours, the signs, the blue signs. If the monument is what's holding this up,
decide what you want to do and make that amendment to the motion and I'm happy that this whole thing...
' Councilman Senn: What do we have on Festival?
Bob Generous: 12 foot monument.
' Councilman Mason: And there's another monument coming because of the PUD. There's going to be two
monuments at Festival. At Market Square.
t Councilman Wing: Our only choice is to ask for renderings.
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion would be to table this and bring back some renderings so we can see exactly
' what you're talking.
John Meyers: Can we do that on just the pylon? And approve the building.
Charlie James: Renderings of, tell us what you want. I mean we've drawn it at 20 foot. We've drawn it at 18.
We've drawn.
' Mayor Chmiel: Give us a choice between something and something rather than something and nothing. To
where we're at at 10 foot.
John Meyers: What about 15 feet? It doesn't make any sense. It will look out of proportion. Sitting all by
itself.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. And I would like to request that the
motion be reviewed right now and stricken and go back to getting renderings and tabling this at this time and
moving from there.
' Councilman Wing: Okay, I'll withdraw the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Second?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll withdraw the second.
Councilman Wing: And I would be willing to move on the building as requested.
Councilman Mason: By?
22
7
u
r
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Councilman Wing: The applicant. And that we'll leave the decision. '
Councilman Senn: The building being exactly what's shown right there?
Councilman Wing: The only issue is 24 Hours.
Councilman Mason: So okay. Quick review here. So we're saying we're going to wait on the monument and '
the pylon but we'll approve, there's a move afoot right now to approve what's on the building.
Councilman Wing: Number 7, number 9 would be... ,
Councilman Mason: How about number 8? You're saying you want to delete number 8 then too? See I don't
care about 24 Hours one way or the other.
Councilman Wing: The building I would approve as...
Councilman Mason: I guess I have a little trouble. If Festival didn't have 24 Hours on it, I would not approve
24 Hours here. I have a little trouble saying Festival can have 24 Hours and Byerly's can't. I mean that. Well,
there are two aren't there? Aren't there two 24 Hours? Does anybody know?
John Meyers: I tell you what. I'll take one of the Open 24 Hours signs off. I've got two on the building. I'll
give you one back. Just give me one. But let's work on the pylon and go 15 feet on the pylon and we're all
out of here.
Councilman Mason: Well I can't believe that we need to make a decision on the pylon tonight. The point we're
making is, I don't know what 12 feet's going to look like. I don't know what 15 feet is going to look like. I
mean quite honestly I can live with 18 but there's some people here that can't and you're asking us to approve '
something we can't see.
Charlie James: That's where I'm having trouble Mike because we drew it according to code and submitted it as
part of your packet, both of them. Then we came in and redrew it at 18 and.
Councilman Wing: There isn't a single picture anywhere of what that looks like on West 78th Street. I mean
I've got a picture of this pylon but so what? Here's the monument. '
Councilman Mason: But you know Charlie, I think the issue right now is, what is it going to look like in
relationship to everything else out there. You know can we have a picture of that 18 foot pylon? That real nice ,
picture you were just passing out here. Yeah. Where is the 18 foot pylon going to fit in in all of that?
John Meyers: From that perspective you wouldn't see it.
Councilman Mason: So give me a picture where I will see it, is what we're asking for.
Mayor Chmiel: Show the site plan that you had previously.
Councilman Mason: It sounds to me like we're saying, everything is in place here right now except we've still
got some questions about the monument and the pylon.
23
i City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Wing: Can I move 1 thru 11 and delete number 7 and 9 and number 8 would be one 24 hour sign?
Mayor Chmiel: Repeat your motion. Motion would be to pass the staff, Planning Commission recommendations
' 1 thru 11 deleting number 7, number 9 and number 8 being changed to one 24 hour sign.
Councilman Senn: I'll second that.
Councilman Mason: With the proviso that, I mean obviously this will come back for discussion as to the size of
the pylon and the monument.
' Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
John Meyers: Do you want the monument back?
Mayor Chmiel: Before I move any further I've got an opinion I'd like to get. Roger.
Roger Knutson: Just to keep in perspective what's going to I believe is happening. They're in for a variance
because of the wall signage and one of the conditions that the Planning Commission's attached to getting that
variance, to get more signage and otherwise ... is that they keep the pylon shorter than what they would otherwise
be entitled to.
Councilman Senn: Again they're entitled to the monument sign too?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
' Councilman Senn: Okay. I withdraw my second.
Roger Knutson: Therefore, you know you can pass it as two chapters if you will but you should be clear that if
they proceed to build that, the condition of granting this variance will be to build the pylon and the monument
consistent with how you're going to decide it in 2 weeks. They are tied together.
' Councilman Senn: Well but what you're saying is neither one of the future considerations is a variance.
Roger Knutson: No. The ones in the future are not. The one today is, on the wall.
Councilman Senn: Yeah but I wanted to see the whole package together.
Roger Knutson: What I'm suggesting, that's fine too.
Councilman Senn: ...variances tonight you lose all negotiating...
Roger Knutson: What you're saying is, if you accept the variance, you accept a condition which you're going to
' impose in 2 weeks.
Councilman Senn: Yeah but the condition's a hollow condition.
24
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: No. '
Roger Knutson: You haven't established it. If they accept the variance, then they have to accept the condition.
They won't know what the condition is until, for 2 weeks. Or whenever you decide. ,
Councilman Senn: Why not just do the whole package in 2 weeks? What difference does it make?
Mayor Chmiel: We can do it either way. Richard, you made a motion. Our second was withdrawn. '
Councilman Wing: There is no second to it. I don't think we can hold these people up. The rest of the
audience hostage on this sign issue. Accordingly I think we need renderings. I don't think we have adequate ,
pictures to make a decision. I think we should see a before and after. I think we ought to see what the
monument looks like on a rendering, east/west on West 78th Street. I'll move tabling until such time.
John Meyers: Can I make a suggestion for you? Why don't you approve it with the 12 foot pylon and that
takes care of Councilman Senn's problem.
Councilman Wing: Because he won't pass it with the monument.
Mayor Chmiel: The monument is alright though. That 8 foot monument is automatic by ordinance, is that right
Bob? '
Bob Generous: It's permitted under code.
Councilman Senn: Not when it's in a variance package though...
Councilman Wing: But not as part of the variance package.
Councilman Mason: Well but if it's part of code. I mean, no.
John Meyers: I just suggest if you want to put a 12 foot pylon in and then we approve the building, we can
come in in the next couple weeks with a rendering and ask you to raise the 12 foot pylon if you like what you
see. If you don't like what you see.
Councilman Senn: Mayor, you and I already have said we don't care if it's 18 feet. I mean that's not where my ,
problem is.
Charlie James: This was the problem I was having at the Planning Commission because some people were
saying Wine's okay and some people were saying Open 24 Hours is okay.
Mayor Chmiel: See if you had different shops with smaller square foot area, you'd have signs all over that
whole building too so that's ... other than the fact of the three sides that they're proposing to have on that structure
from one end to the other.
Councilman Wing: Roger, do we need a 4/5 of this being a variance? '
Roger Knutson: No.
25
1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Wing: Then I'm going to go with the original motion that you seconded. 1 thru 11 with number 7
being 10 feet maximum and number 8 being one 24 hour.
' Bob Generous: I believe for a sign variance it does take a full 4/5 of the full Council.
Roger Knutson: Then I will stand corrected.
' Mayor Chmiel: Check that for clarification. I think it's, that's right too. It's 4/5.
Kate Aanenson: At least 4/5, correct.
' Councilman Wing: The only contact that the rest of the stores are going to have is in that monument sign.
Councilman Senn: But I want to correct something you said. Each one of those small tenants comes in and
requests their own signage. It has nothing to do with what we're considering tonight. So if you're under the
impression that this building's going to be blank, that's not reality.
Councilman Wing: That's what I'm assuming...
Bob Generous: This building will.
Councilman Mason: That part of the building will.
Mayor Chmiel: This building won't change. That's going to be just as is. But if you have tenants on the other
' segment of this building, yes. You're right in what you're saying.
Charlie James: The signs on the other, the other retail tenants will not exceed 80 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and that will be on the pylon itself? Or on the monument. Is that correct?
Councilman Senn: No, he's asking for the signage on the monument and on the building.
Mayor Chmiel: You've got too many signs.
Charlie James: Let me just try to.
Councilman Mason: Go for it. Go for it.
r
Charlie James: Alright. The area that we need the variance in pertains only to the Byerly s. It pertains to the
size of the sign on the Byerly's. We were trying to illustrate that we think that there's some work that needs to
be done in your code. We're saying we don't want to be held hostage to that. We wanted you to look at kind
of the gestalt of this. Say it is consistent with what's in the neighborhood. And then as part of that sign
package we drew the monument exactly to code and we drew the pylon exactly to code. Okay. And the rest of
the building, the rest of the shopping center, all the signs, none of them will be bigger than 80 square feet.
Okay so, we're not asking for any variances. So what I guess, for the sake of all of us getting on with our lives,
I guess what I'd like to suggest and now I understand what Roger is saying is that, it's apparently legitimate for
26
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
a Planning Commission or a City Council, when they're entertaining a variance to, even though the pylon and '
the monument are permitted by code, to say that those should be down sized in order to allow the increase size
on the building. Is that a correct statement?
Roger Knutson: That's correct. '
Charlie James: Okay. So what I would suggest here, let's try one more run with this. We'll draw up a 12 foot '
pylon. What's probably going to have to happen is we're going to keep the whole scale of the thing will
probably have to come down because I don't know. We'll draw up a 12 foot pylon. The monument we'll
leave the way it is. We're asking for approval of what you see here and we'll take the 24 hours off this side of
the building. One 24 hour off the east side of the building. ,
John Meyers: Or somewhere...
Charlie James: We will take the sign off of the northwest corner of the building and we would ask that you
move on the balance.
Councilman Wing: I don't want to get beat up here so I'm happy with what's going on here. Basically I'm
happy with 1 thru 11 with these exceptions, and I offer these as a motion. Number 7 will be a pylon sign
limited to 12 feet. One 24 hour will be allowed. The number 9 will simply state 8 foot monument and the rest
of them are intact and then I'm getting out of this.
Councilman Mason: You're making a motion on that?
John Meyers: You want to change 8 to make it only one, don't you?
Councilman Mason: That's what he said. ,
John Meyers: Oh I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
Mayor Chmiel: He said one.
Councilman Wing: 8 foot monument on number 9 rather than the same as Target. And the pylon not to exceed
12. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: I don't think anybody needs to be held hostage over a monument sign or a 4 or 5 foot
pylon. I've stated my feelings about that before. I think, you know. What happens here, and I understand some
of the consternation of the audience but I also know that their turn is going to be coming up shortly and I also
know that if somebody doesn't like the signs, we're going to be the people that take the flack for it so we've got
to get this right in our minds so government does in fact work slowly folks. You seconded it. I'm okay with
what's there. A monument. Market Square's going to have another one. I guess I think people have a certain
amount of legitimacy to do some advertising on monuments like that so I'm fine with this.
Councilman Wing: And Mark, I don't see this monument coming in as anything but first class. Now there's
other areas that I question how they operate and what they do but not here and I think that Charlie and Byerly's
27
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
are going to put in an attractive sign that's going to be reasonable and good quality.
John Meyers: It's all brick, just so you know.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motions on the floor with a second. I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the
West Village Center to permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of
Byerly's (a variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east
elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 296 square feet), approval of the signage on the west elevation of the
' retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's This approval is
subject to the following conditions:
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
' 2. All signs require a separate permit.
' 3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color,
size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign.
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of not to exceed 12 feet.
' 8. The words "Open 24 Hours" will be permitted on one side of the building.
9. Replace the east elevation wall sign with a monument sign containing Byerly's.
10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall account for the removal
of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
' 11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion fails with a vote of 3 to 1. (It
needs a 415 majority vote to pass.)
Mayor Chmiel: Which means that she fails and it's dead. Maybe what we can do is to do this. Yes, we've got
one more Council member who is I think having her baby hopefully right now. And probably table this. Bring
back some of those things that we talked before and we'll move on it at that particular time. And I'd like to see
this put back on Council agenda within 2 weeks. Is there a second?
' Councilman Wing: Second.
�
28
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the variance request to the code regarding sign
requirements for West Village Heights Center, Lot 4, Block 1, West Village Heights Second Addition until
the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Mayor Chmiel: We'll see you in 2 weeks. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. That would assume that Colleen would be back available in 2 weeks?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Well. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Well we may even see something back here that may appease Mark with his position.
PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING COMMENTS ON THE HIGHWAY 5
CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE EAW FOR THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT
ANALYSIS. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO '
IMPLEMENT TH GOALS OF THE PLAN.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Brad Johnson
7425 Frontier
Vernelle Clayton
422 Santa Fe Circle
Larry VanDeVeire 4980 Co. Rd. 10E, Chaska
Harold Skjelbostad LSA Design
Lisa Notermann
1450 Arboretum
Paul Paulson
3160 West 82nd Street, Chaska
Mike Gorra
1680 Arboretum
Peter Olin
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
Steve Schwanke
RLK Associates
Bruce Buxton
WSN -Mills Properties Inc.
Thomas Green
Mills Properties Inc.
Peter Beck
7900 Xerxes Avenue So.
John Hennessy
7305 Galpin
Jay Dolejsi
6961 Chaparral Lane.
Deb Porter
Barton- Aschman
James Unruh
Barton - Aschman
'
Kate Aanenson:
The purpose of this hearing tonight is three fold. What we'd really like to do is reference, try
to get a selection for the preferred alternative for the Highway 5.
it Thank
Mayor Chmiel:
Could we have quiet please? you.
Kate Aanenson:
In your work session on February 7th we walked through the documents that are involved in
'
29
11
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' the Highway 5 study. As I mentioned it's a three fold process to this. One is the EA document. That's ... to be
the location of the frontage road between Powers Boulevard and Highway 41. The second component is the land
use recommendations for the corridor study. And the third component is the overlay for the corridor study itself.
The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the study, the land use recommendations modifications
' and the frontage road alignment, which is the most northerly frontage road alignment. What we are asking you
tonight to do is to obviously consider all. We're available to answer questions on all three issues but most
preferably we would like a recommendation from you on the location of the frontage road. The reason this
' being as we need to get this into the next arena which is the publication in the EQB, the Environmental Quality
Board and take up the 30 day comment period where you hold a public hearing after that. As I put in the packet
here, there's a letter from MnDot and that looks like there's a possibility that we could get funding for a
' segment. Break out a segment of this and possibly do a '95 project and that would be the segment where we
have a lot of problems getting into Lake Ann, which is going to be between Powers and the Lake Ann and
possibly even picking up a larger segment. Obviously we'd like to see it go all the way to Galpin but in the
short run, at least getting that segment approved. In order to do that we have to have the EA document in place.
' We do have here tonight Deb Porter from Barton- Aschman and James Unruh who worked on the design of the
two different alternatives themselves. So I think a lot of the discussion tonight is going to focus on the
alternatives of the two different alignments of the road and what do they cost and the pros and cons. If you go
back to our discussion at the work session back in February, I think a lot of concern the Planning Commission
had, I mean excuse me, the Council had was the cost differential between the two alternatives. I did include in
your packet a summary chart of two different alternatives and Deb can explain that in more detail if you have a
question on that but it's pretty much a wash as far as costs. There's environmental impacts ... but I think probably
' the overall cost, if you look at the estimated cost, they're pretty close. The task force did recommend a
crossover and that seems to be where a lot of the concern is and that's when you cross at Galpin. Does it cross
the creek or does it stay to the north? ...into the Hennessy property. So again what we're looking at is for you
' to get some input from respective properties along this frontage. We did notify everybody along the whole
corridor to give them an opportunity to speak to you and we're hoping to get tonight from the Council is a
preferred alignment so we can process this and get it to you. I did put in here the requirements to get this
' process and get it onto the Federal Highway Administration so if you have questions on this, Deb Porter and
James Unruh are both here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Are there any questions in regards to this? As Kate indicated, we have to make a
' recommendation of the preferred alignment for the frontage road and approve the EA document as well as to
modify or adopt the Highway 5 corridor overlay zone and also approve the Highway 5 corridor study with the
land use recommendations that has been proposed. I would like to see us address presently, at this time, just the
' service road from County Road 17 extending west to Lake Ann Park. I think that's a very critical part of this
proposal at this time because of the accessibility in and out of that park and I think that with people wanting to
get to and from, it would be a much safer portion going off Powers Boulevard, County Road 17 and making that
access through that service road. Taking it off of Highway 5 completely. But maybe if you could address that
part of it.
Kate Aanenson: I think I'll let James Unruh talk about where we are. We talked about this as far as when this
is special funding...
Councilman Senn: Yeah Don, I didn't have a question before but now I do because, maybe I'm not following
but I thought you were asking that we approve the alignment all the way.
30
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Kate Aanenson: Well as part of the EA document we need the preferred alternative, the whole segment. I
Councilman Senn: And that's what under the time crunch that we have to act on?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Because we need to get the whole document approved. We're hoping, as James is ,
going to talk about, that MnDot, it looks like they may break a portion of this out and fund it as a '95 project
instead of waiting until the 1998 -99 year. But we need to have an EA document in place. And what we talked '
about before, if we have the whole document in place and money loosens up, there's a possibility of getting the
whole project going. And ... Conway's property is ready to go and get that property maybe tied to this whole
project so we would like to see the preferred alignment for the whole segment, if you're ready to do that. And
maybe it takes one more meeting after this to come to some conclusions but.
Councilman Senn: What is just the alignment from Powers to the park ... at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Well that's an easement we have through Eckankar. That's pretty much. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's all in place.
Deb Porter. Why don't I point out the limits of the project that we're talking about right now. Powers
Boulevard or County Road, or to South 17 is this intersection right here and what we are looking at as far as the
STP funds, it's called Service Transportation Program. That's part of the federal funding package. Is looking at
'
possibly applying for funds to build at least a portion of Arboretum Boulevard either to Lake Ann Park entrance
or preferably to Audubon Road intersection. That's where we really see a lot of impact happening in the next
couple years with development south of TH 5. So that portion of it is one application but James can explain mi
more detail. There are actually two applications being sent forward at the same time through MnDot. One
'
includes the portion of Powers to Audubon. The other is from Powers to TH 41. The entire segment and
there's no disadvantage in applying for both of these. It's kind of a, you know throw it into a big pool. You
be funded.
know make your grant application and there's a chance that either will
Councilman Senn: But from a timing standpoint, what you need is the alignment? The overlay and the design, I
mean those, if I'm reading the staff report, those would be nice but I mean they're not critical at this point.
What you're really after is a decision on the preferred alternative.
,
Deb Porter. Right. MnDot is at the point now with their engineering design. If they're ready to move ahead on
Highway 5. If order to do that they need to know where are all the access points. What are your major
intersections going to look like along TH 5? And that's determined by Arboretum Boulevard so that's their
incentive and that's what their letter about was to urge the city to come to some resolution on the preferred
alternative.. James, is there any details you want to mention about the funding or the deadlines that go with that?
James Unruh: No. The only thing is, the City of Chanhassen is applying for funding from, as Deb said, County
Road 17 to Audubon Road. Now that's for upgrading Highway 5 to four lanes and for constructing a frontage
road. So there's two parts to that. That's due April 1st. This Friday so we're actually working on that. MnDot
'
is applying for federal funds to construction Highway 5 to four lanes and Arboretum Boulevard all the way from
County Road 17 to TH 41 and that also has to be done this, by this Friday. We'll find out about that at the end
of June and that would cover 80% of the cost for Highway 5 and Arboretum Boulevard. The other 20% would
be a mixture of city funds and state funds. So we'll apply and hopefully get the funding for it. That would
push, if the entire project would go, get funded, I believe ... to 1997. 1997, 1998. But that's basically where
31
11
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
we're at. It's a real tight time frame to get the application for the funding and we don't necessarily need a
decision for this application on Friday but to keep the EA moving for the overall process, we...
1 Deb Porter. I think also another thing that may need to be mentioned is that these applications are one of just
hundreds that are being submitted and I think MnDot has tried to let us know in a subtle way and maybe also in
their last letter that you received from them, is that there are many projects competing for limited funds and
those that seem to have their planning in place. They have their environmental review documents approved and
' there's consensus among the community as to what to build, those will have the least hassle. The least headache
in trying to get funding approved. If they see something that looks like it's ... with a lot of disagreements and
delays and so on, other projects may look better in comparison so I think that's been our concern in trying to
' move the environmental document ahead. It's not necessarily to just push a decision sooner than it needs to be
made but now we're looking at critical funding deadlines and to present the project in the best possible light you
need to have it look as though we're fairly sure as to which way to go.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Again I just wanted to, what we did then was by notifying people, just to give them an
opportunity to speak to the concerns that they would have with the two different alternatives and let that help
you make some recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay we'll open it up at this time and if we could limit this to probably about a 3
' minute time frame per each person getting up because we do have some additional business to conduct yet this
evening. So if there's anyone wishing to address this issue at this time, please come forward and indicate those
concerns. Maybe we could just lower that. Is there anyone wishing to say something in regard to this? It's
your opportunity to give some additional input into this. I know we've had a lot of work done on this. A lot of
open meetings and this has been going on for almost a year and a half, two years.
' Jay Dolejsi: Is this on the entire corridor?
Mayor Chmiel: This is on the entire corridor that we're looking at, correct. Just please state your name and
' your address.
Jay Dolejsi: My name is Jay Dolejsi, 6961 Chaparral Lane. I own property between the Mills Fleet Farm site
and the Swings golf course. One of my concerns is if this federal funding does not come through, who's going
to be paying for this road? And also on my particular piece of property, I would like to see that road, the
northern alignment swung a little farther south to preserve the large stand of oaks that is currently running
through. That's about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
Tom Green: My name is Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. We've been following these
meetings for several years as you all probably know. We own the property at Highway 5 and 41, the northeast
quadrant. Our detailed response to this is in a letter which I'll hand out to everyone but in summary we disagree
' with the present road alignment through our property. It is, as it's shown, the north alignment makes our
property unusable for the purpose that we're intending to develop it. We can't build a store there... While I'm
here I'm going to comment on the land use that deal with the land use study. It's not reasonable for our
' 32
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
property, which is located on the intersection of two State Highways. Thank you.
,
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
150 the
Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. I own approximately acres on
southwest side of Lake Ann and your northerly road alignment's going to be running right through the center of
my property. I'd like to make a few comments. I attended most of the task force, Highway 5 Task Force
meetings and Planning Commission meetings and I still don't understand why the city decides that Chanhassen
'
needs a 6 lane highway running into a business district that's only a couple block square. I don't think that
business district is going to get much bigger unless they start tearing down houses and schools and existing
buildings. Minneapolis has a 6 lane highway, that's Highway 35W but Minneapolis is just a little bit bigger
'
than Chanhassen. It's probably got about the same number of stop lights but it is a little bit bigger.
Minneapolis, I don't think the people that live in Minneapolis paid for that 35W either. I think the State of
Minnesota paid for that. And I too am also worried about who's going to get the bill for this road in case
MnDot pulls out—we talked about. What I've got here, I've owned this property most of this property for
,
exactly 20 years and I've lived on it for 17 and I'm a developer and I have had plans for this property and
you're looking at one of the plans that I've been considering for approximately 3 years now. Before I even
heard that there was a road running through the property. You can see that what that road would do to a golf
,
course. It'd make it impossible to build. Another thing that I would, another project that I would contemplate
putting on this project, in case the golf course wouldn't work for some reason, even though a golf course is my
fast choice, would be a high end real estate development and the road would not do that any good either. You
'
couldn't tie it together. You couldn't put a lake access for all the development. It just wouldn't work. Which
isn't hard to understand because ... is divided in half. Looking at the whole west end of the city there, you've got
the school that you're developing. You've got your baseball diamonds. You've got the park...if I did have a
chance to build a golf course, it would fit right in with everything. In fact even if the rest of the city got messed
,
up, the west end of town would probably carry it. Now I'm not here trying to talk you out of that road so I can
make more money because anybody that knows anything about development, and I hope there is a few people
here. Would be able to tell you that if I developed that property, I would be able to make considerably more
'
money than if I put a golf course on it. It's just the economics of the development business. I'm not here trying
to be a good guy saying I'm going to give Chanhassen a golf course because I like to live here. I'm kind of
selfish. I do live here. I've lived here a long time and I do live on the property so I have developed for 20
years because I wanted to do something that would really make the property look nice for you know, for a long
'
time in the future, and I think a golf course would do that. So I'm not just trying to stand up here and say that
I'm going to do something that I'm not to delay this project. I know some people in the past have asked, have
stood up here and said, hey Gorra's not going to build a golf course. He's just trying to throw a wrench in our
,
plans. Well, those people don't know what they're talking about. First of all how could they know what I plan
to do. And why wouldn't I do it? I've got the land. I'm in the business. I've got the plans and I just told you
that I could make more money developing it anyway. Not only that, none of my plans include a road going
'
through the center of my property so you'd have to take it from me and usually that involves condemnation.
Paying for the land. Separation costs. I don't know if the people who live out in Chanhassen are going to want
to pay for that in their taxes. My suggestion is to do what Evan Green suggested a long time ago. He's with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation. That they would provide me, my property, 150 acres with a stub
'
off of Audubon Road. You come across TH 5. Stub into my property. That would handle my property. It
would go all the way through to the city. Take care of your park traffic, if you have a lot of, you know enough
traffic that would justify that. The property to the west would be handled by CR 117 and TH 41. That's why
'
the State put those highways there in the fast place many years ago. You've also got TH 101, CR 17, Highway
7 and you've got other accesses into town. I don't think a 6 lane highway paralleling or an additional 2 lanes
33
I
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
paralleling an existing 4 lanes is going to do any good I also wanted to ask one question. At one of the other
meetings, or at several of the other meetings it was stated that MnDot didn't want to pay for a route that was too
far off of the Highway 5 access. Does that still hold true or has that changed?
Deb Porter. No, the funding officers for construction funding for either alternative are the same. Those have
always been, the ratio, the ... ratio is 80% federal funding. The other 20 %, which would be made up by MnDot
and city funds.
Mike Gorra: But are you familiar with what they said maybe 6 months ago. That they would kind of balk if
you strayed the highway too far from Highway 5 corridor?
Deb Porter. No, those discussions were based more or less on right -of -way acquisition. The land acquisition
...and the right -of -way acquisition policy of MnDot is generally they are interested in buying properties that
border a state facility like Trunk Highway 5. So it is, there is less likelihood of—as much right -of -way
' acquisition for Alternative 1, the route that's farthest from the highway versus Alternative 2. That's strictly
right -of -way cost. That doesn't have anything to do with the construction.
' Mike Gorra: But it is true that they'd be less apt to kick in for the right -of -way costs, which would be a
substantial part of this project?
Deb Porter. Land costs, right -of -way costs. Both alternatives would have some portion of right -of -way costs
participating with MnDot.
Mike Gorra: But that northerly route would have less. So the excess burden would fall on the city of
Chanhassen taxpayers, is that correct?
Deb Porter. City and federal money.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Paul Paulson: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Paul Paulson. I live on the northwest quadrant of the
' intersection of 82nd Street and Highway 41. My concern, I guess the reason I'm here tonight is concerning land
use. The Opus, actually that Gateway West Business Park straddles Highway 41. The bulk of it is on the
southeast quadrant of that intersection. However 30 acres of it is on the west side of Highway 41. Now of that
northwest quadrant of 82nd Street and Highway 41 there are 40 acres and my property, the 10 acres is on the
northwest part of that. And the only access to my property is a one quarter mile easement through the heart of
the 30 acres owned by Steiner Development, which is part of the Gateway West Business Park. Anyway, my
concern is that if my property is not given adequate consideration in the plans for development in that area, that
I'll have a severe negative impact on the value of that property over the long term. And I guess my primary
concern is that I'll become an island in the midst of development there. Unfortunately we don't have a map of
that area. Do we? This is my property right here. The easement goes through here. This is the proposed
' Gateway West Business Park. I believe it's all the way down in here. About this part. Here is the Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum and you'll notice that our property being here, we're sandwiched between the Landscape
Arboretum and the Business Park. We're landlocked. The analogy I was just thinking of this evening as I was
listening to the end of the discussion is that it seems to me that that property is a little bit like the filling between
two halves of an Oreo cooking. The top half might be Gateway West Business Park. The bottom half might be
the Arboretum and I'm the filling in the middle. Now there's two interesting characteristics about the filling in
' 34
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
the middle of an Oreo cooking. First of all it's been squished Okay. And second of all, there's the buffer
between the halves of the cookie. I'm here tonight to avoid being squished and to say that I don't want it to be
used as a buffer between the business park and the Arboretum. About a year, maybe over a year ago I requested
at the City Council that our property be incorporated into the project. And by that I mean I requested that we
become part of the Planned Unite Development, the PUD for Gateway West Business Park. To the best of my
knowledge, no action has been taken on that. And so another one of my concerns is that I feel a little bit of a
lack of response on the part of the city in reacting to my request. Another example of that sense of lack of
response is a recent letter that I sent to Mr. Paul Krauss. The former Planning Director of the city of
Chanhassen. And with the Mayor's permission I'd like to pass around a copy of that letter to the City Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: Paul, just to clarify. I remember, I don't remember the discussion on this land use other
than , what's your proposed and preferred use of that land?
Paul Paulson: Of our property?
Councilman Wing: Yes.
Paul Paulson: I don't have necessarily a specific desire for what happens to that property in terms of
development but I would like it to become incorporated into the overall Gateway West Business project so that,
so that more than anything if in the future we'd like to leave that property, our property has some value and we
could sell it. If we remain an island, I believe that the value of the property will be very minimal because I
can't imagine anyone wanting to buy a single family residence in the middle of a business park. I personally
wouldn't touch it. Also I'd like to.
Mayor Chmiel: Has the Arboretum ever contacted you?
Paul Paulson: About?
Mayor Chmiel: Regarding your property and acquisition of it.
Paul Paulson: I've had some informal just conversations with Peter Olin in regards to the overall 40 acres. That
they would very much like to purchase that and I agree wholeheartedly. I would love to see the Arboretum get
it. I'm jumping ahead a little bit. I was going to mention this at the very end but in the Planning Commission
meeting of January 19th I believe, there was a discussion about what the residents of the city of Chanhassen
south of 82nd Street would like to have happen north of them on north of 82nd Street. And I believe the
understanding of the Planning Commission members was that those people would prefer industrial office space
north of 82nd Street. I did contact two of those neighbors before I came this evening and they said their number
one, if they could have a wish list of what would happen. The number one thing they want to have happen is
for the Arboretum to buy that property at a reasonable price because that would protect them and they appreciate
the presence of the Arboretum there. Short of that, their next desire would be to have it be a nicely done office
or industrial site. Next beyond that would be low density housing. Maybe 1 to 4 houses per acre and then it
would go to medium density and then high density. So the addition, you know the housing part is the least
desirable for them. I would like to read the text of this letter so that it's recorded in the Minutes of this meeting.
It's just a single page letter and I'll go through it quickly.
35
F-1
L
LE I
J
P-
I
P
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
1
Mayor Chmiel: If you would, I think what we're looking at is this can be entered into discussions as far as this
is concerned and I'll make sure that it does get into the Minutes.
Paul Paulson: So the verbatim text of this will be in there?
' Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Right.
Paul Paulson: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Is it not sufficient Mr. Mayor to make sure that the Minutes refer to this letter rather than.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's all we'd have to.
Paul Paulson: So my goal is that the actual text ... and not just a reference to the letter. Okay.
' 'Please refer to a copy of the letter submitted by Mr. Paul Paulson which is attached and made a part of
the official Minutes of the City Council Meeting.
Councilman Wing: Before you go Paul. Again, I don't remember these discussions from a year ago. Looking
at the Arboretum coming south. It seems like the perfect buffer would be low density housing. Why would you
and the neighbors prefer the industrial park? What's the reason for that?
Paul Paulson: Well I didn't ask the neighbors I questioned specifically so I might be taking a little bit of a
guess here but they see the office industrial park as a daytime use. Maybe during daylight hours and then they
would have it quiet during the evening hours. And there's also a concern with higher density housing that
there'd be many more people there. Then you have problems with people trespassing and you know pets and all
that sort of thing. And there's also a concern about people going into the Arboretum and trespassing and that
' sort of thing.
Kate Aanenson: I just had a comment. That was the reason why. Obviously it was felt that if we did the PUD,
it could be ... and you'd have something that would probably be pretty nominal on the weekends and shut down at
' night as opposed to multi - family which would be traffic pretty much non stop. Plus the weekend, as far as the
trash and noise and a lot of that would, we'd have more control over industrial. We'll be putting in that it would
be the higher end office as opposed to industrial traffic. We could arrange ... and that sort of thing. Again, this is
still...I know Mr. Paulson has thought we have ignored him but Opus, we have not seem them back. There are
still ongoing negotiations. We're still negotiating. Don has a meeting with them next week. We're still hoping
some things happen with the Arboretum on that property in this area. They've got a lot of work to do and
things have to, they've changed their plan. We talked about that, as far as grading. What we did was we told
' them not to come back until we get the Highway 5 corridor planned and that's what we're... We've asked them
to incorporate a lot of the issues with this plan.
Paul Paulson: I have a question on that. Does that mean that my property could not be considered for
incorporation into the PUD until Opus completes their work?
Kate Aanenson: Certainly not. I mean their PUD is a separate thing from this. What we're recommending is
' some land use. What we're hoping is that there's a possibility that maybe some of that property to the north and
we would also be by the Arboretum. Then you wouldn't be an island, which is.
36
J
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Paul Paulson: And see, that's part of my problem. You said that their plan is separate from this. And that's
my problem is I don't want them to be separate. I want my property to be considered in conjunction with what
they're planning to do.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. And that would be part of their PUD. We haven't left you out. We originally, the
staff is the one that had the recommendation to include Mr. Paulson. At fast he was reluctant and then he
thought, well I don't want to be an island and asked me. We certainly ask the developers of that property to
work something out to maybe incorporate him.
Paul Paulson: And see that's the other thing. That's another example of my sense of no reaction because you're
right. I saw that. About a year and a half ago there was a request that the developers incorporate both my
property and Wrase's property and I haven't heard a single word from anybody.
Kate Aanenson: We're working to do that.
Don Ashworth: But neither have we. I mean we can't incorporate you into something that doesn't exist.
Paul Paulson: And I'm not asking to be incorporated ... but I want to be planned in on the development so I don't
find myself 5 years down the road with a property that I can't sell. I'm stuck. So that's all I'm asking.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else?
Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I'm representing the Arboretum and I've not talked with Paul in quite a while so I'm
glad to hear his views. We are concerned about that end of this corridor study obviously but I wanted to address
the route, as that's what you are looking at tonight. And I was on the team looking at that. We did look at all
the land use along there. We tried to consider all the different options that were proposed, and there were many
and obviously some are not going to work no matter where that goes. But one of the, several of things that we
looked at were making this not just a frontage road but a city street for Chanhassen. A continuation of main
street. And when you look at many of the suburban towns that have grown and the highways that have gone
through them, they create a wide swath. Not only the highway but the frontage roads. It's not only ugly but it
divides the town up and becomes a real barrier. And this was a new idea. Chance to make something a little
different to create this as a main street or a continuation of main street for Chanhassen. We looked at it in terms
of the town center and the town center ending at Powers Boulevard. It is Powers isn't it? I've got the right
road there. And then from then on going into the neighborhood. Parks and neighborhoods and the way the
route on the northern section would be would allow neighborhoods to be on both sides of that street so that it
would be very much like a town street. A main street and then it would end up at the border of the Arboretum
at sort of the end of town on Highway 41. We thought it was a very good concept. It solved the circulation
problems and it also allowed for the town to grow and to create a nice image. Part of the image right now of
Chanhassen, which is going to be lost shortly is the agricultural community. The open lands and the forest lands
and this was a way to keep some of that right along Highway 5 as well because some of those areas are not
quite buildable. So we thought it was a very good route and we're glad to see that recommendation come from
the Planning Commission from our work up to the Council. We hope you approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Lisa Notermann: I'm Lisa Notermann. I live at 1450 Arboretum Blvd. I'd just like to make a comment. My
house is going no matter what. I'm right by Lake Ann Park. We really need, we really would like to have
37
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
some time frame. We're living in limbo out there, you know and it's really hard. Just with the upkeep of your
home and with the kids in school. I mean it's really a hard situation that we're in right now and I'm hoping that
it will be something decided soon and that you'll inform us so that we know what's going on. I mean last
meeting we came here and we thought, when we left we thought well, anywhere from 4 to 14 years. And now I
hear well, maybe '95 you know. That's pretty soon so I'm hoping that you keep us informed. And if it is going
to be long range, then let us know. If it is short term, then let us know but don't let us sitting in limbo forever.
Mayor Chmiel: If you can't get questions, call me.
Lisa Notermann: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: You're welcome. Anyone else?
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Beck and I'm here tonight on behalf of the owners of
the Ward property, which is a piece of property completely unrelated to this, the road corridor and I'd be more
than happy to bring my comments up at a later meeting when you're talking about land uses in general in the
corridor unless this is the only opportunity to bring it up. If this is the one and only chance to talk about land
uses anywhere in the corridor and you want to get into another topic, I'll talk about the Ward property. I'm
happy to come back at a future meeting if you're going to have another public hearing on the land use.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate. Regarding the location in comparison to what we're talking from Powers Boulevard
going west, the property which is the Ward property, as you're aware of TH 101 and.
Kate Aanenson: It's on TH 101 south of TH 5.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Peter Beck: Not related...
Kate Aanenson: There are some land use recommendations as a part of this and different even from this at the
Planning Commission. We kind of went through those in our work session. As I mentioned, there's really three
components but this one right now we want you to get on for the 30 day comment period. As I suspect we'll
probably come back in order to get those issues resolved and have another public hearing and maybe even a
work session before that. So if you guys want to make it part of the record or.
Peter Beck: I'd be more than happy to come back. I just want to be sure we're not passing up our opportunity
by not speaking.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think that you would be.
Don Ashworth: Eventually we're going to be looking to a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Don Ashworth: Okay. That requires a separate public hearing process. So I mean it would be at that point in
time where Peter should really show up and talk about the land use issues.
W
t
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Peter Beck: I'm more than happy to do that because our request is that you also do something different than the '
Planning Commission recommended on the corridor study but it is land use related and I'll be happy to bring it
up later.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Sure.
Peter Beck: So I'll do that with respect to the Ward. As the Council knows, Eckankar is also a client of mine
and I just wanted to tell the Council, the discussion about the project that's ready to go ... be more likely to
happen and the most important segment of course of this frontage road is the piece that goes through Eckankar
and I think the Council should know that the right -of -way for that is all resolved. An easement is required.
There will be no hassle from the property owner with respect to that segment of the frontage road and ,
Eckankar's looking forward to working with the city as to landscaping and the way that road lays into the
easement as that moves forward and the landscaping we talked about. You know additional opportunity for
landscaping... so at least for that segment over there, there should be no controversy and you should be able to
present a pretty clean proposal to the people that decide whether it's going to in.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? '
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Steve Schwanke with RLK Associates and
like Mr. Beck, we are here this evening representing DataServ. DataSery owns approximately 60 acres south of
Trunk Highway 5 just west of Dell Road and again, like Mr. Beck mentioned, our comments are mainly land use '
related. We just wanted to make you aware that DataSery is within a month of completing their corporate
planning process for that piece of property and in the near future will be before you to discuss a number of land
use and site design related issues. Thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks. Anyone else?
Susan Markert: My name is Susan Markert and I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard which is the northeast corner '
of TH 5 and TH 41. And I just want to comment that I am in agreement with the northerly route because I
think any other route which would have been down south further wouldn't work because of the stacking of the
traffic. And also I'm wondering, I had heard that there could be some sort of a lit intersection. Is that true? ,
Where that northerly route would come onto TH 41. Is that going to, has that been decided?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think any determination has been made on that. Kate? I
Kate Aanenson: Well as that property north of the Arboretum, the Courtnoy property, that develops. There may
be a street to T into that property.
Susan Marken: No, I'm talking about lit Kate. Is it going to be lit. Is there going to be a light. '
Mayor Chmiel: Well I would imagine. '
Kate Aanenson: If warrant, that would have to be something that would be resolved.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That would be something that would be looked at by the city. A determination is the '
light is shed the proper area within. If there's a given problem, and there could very well be. You're talking
strictly a light, not a stop and go light?
39
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' Susan Markert: No. I'm talking, I don't care. Anything. See I'm talking anything. Anything that changes you
know I'm concerned about. I'm wondering if there's any way that we could get a buffer you know. A bit of a
buffer from evergreen trees where that would come. I don't know exactly how close that's going to come to our
i house. I did know and I can't remember now. It's been a while. Is there any possibility that we could get
some sort of a buffer of evergreen trees? Lots of them.
Mayor Chmiel: I can't make any commitment on it right now but that's something that Council can take under
consideration.
Susan Marken: Okay. I would ask that the Council would take that under consideration because it does, you
know somewhat alter our view. I also would like to make a comment on my concern for the, well first of all the
evergreen trees that were just knocked down on the Byerly's, I believe it's the Byerly's property. Is there a
reason. I'm concerned about the alteration you know of the land. ...but the alteration of this hill. I'm real
concerned about that and I'm wondering if there's some sort of a maximum grading ordinance that is ... because I
don't want to see this beautiful. Okay we picked this road and I was also on the committee. Picked this road to
be north of Highway 5 for the beauty of it. And part of the beauty of it is the hill. So now if you start
flattening everything because it's easier to build something on a flat piece of property than a hill, then I, it's
going to look like Highway 7, depending on what area it is. Market Boulevard or something like that. Where
they widened Highway 7 and took all the hills down. I'm very concerned about the aesthetic beauty of what we
have because that's what Chanhassen is about. Is there any kind of an ordinance to protect the destruction of the
hills?
Kate Aanenson: That ... overlay zone. That was ... and maybe James can speak to that. That was how the
alignment came to be. We looked at the natural features. Mr. Dolejsi brought up the oak trees and ... but we
looked at all the natural features. The creeks. The wetlands. The existing stand of trees. The topography and I
mean James had that whole area worked and what he came up with was 4 alignments and they got narrowed
down to two preferred and we looked at an 80 foot right -of -way because it came down to a 32 foot paved
section with a bike trail on it and a lot of that was designed with the sensitivity of saving or preserving the
natural features.
Councilman Wing: You were there Sue. I'm surprised you don't have the answers yourself because we
discussed all of these.
Susan Markert: Well I know but I said I'm also bringing up an issue that I want to make sure that you know,
that everybody's aware of that. Okay I was there. I agree with that. And also I would like to make a comment
lastly, of the width of the road to be. There was the narrow road and then the second, I think it was the second
to the narrowest. That's what the task force wanted. I would hope that you would comply with that because I
' believe it's a workable road but I don't like to see, you know personally myself, would like to see a big wide
road where we don't really actually need it I don't believe. So I guess that's all I have to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail.
I'm here as both a resident and then also representing... Conway who owns some property out that way. As far
' as the, which northerly or southerly route. I think we have figured out that we can work with either one on the
Conway site. We are concerned however, as we've done our planning and you'll soon see the proposed plan
probably within about 30 days, that the current plan will require you potentially immediately to condemn Mr.
40
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Gorra's property and to condemn Mr. Hennessy's property in order to give us access to that so I'd like to have
you look at what is currently before you because if Mr. Conway is going to develop his property, currently there
is no access unless one or both of those are done. Which brings me to a couple of questions, and I have been to
a lot of these meetings. I have not, from a development point of view, seen costs adequately addressed. I note
,
that the road across the way, a short portion of that is up around $4 million so far. Over by the new school. I
just don't understand how this is all going to be paid for. Number two, the completion time will relate to when
it's going to be paid for. I have no idea when this will be completed. My concern is not so much for Mr.
Conway's property but just for all of you to go through this whole process and there are no funds available.
,
Each time a parcel there is going to be developed it will be kind of a small war. If there's no money available
from the city. We understand the cost of this road is in the $200.00 to $260.00 a square foot. A normal road
that would be required by development of this nature I guess is around $100.00 so there's quite a bit of
difference in cost. I don't know how that's going to be handled I have not seen a traffic study. It's nice to
have a road running from TH 41. The road starts and ends basically nowhere in my point of view. It's
basically a collector street. Most of the people that we've talked to tend, if they go to TH 41 they end up going
TH 5 to come into town. If they go to CR 17, they end up on TH 5 to come into town because TH 5 will
always be quicker. So it would be interesting to see, we're good at traffic studies here. If this whole area is
developed, how much traffic would this road actually handle. And then I think one of the problems you're going
to have as you go through this whole process, and this is just for the record, is that you're trying to align
basically collector streets for quite a long ways. And I really question whether it needs to be a road that runs
from TH 41 to downtown. I think you're going to run into a lot of costs and over a long time and in fact, if we
just look at a collector street like much of the road to the south is, you'd probably get it put in by developers
and with a lot of extra costs but just these alignments are causing trouble. An example of that is Mr. Hennessy's
property. Because we've got a historical bam across the street, we've got to go through Mr. Hennessy's house
and all these kinds of things are just going to create a large cost. I haven't seen what I'd call an adequate real
effective cost to the city, especially if you don't have federal funding and if you don't have state funds.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Why don't we see if there's an answer to that.
Kate Aanenson: Would you like us to respond to that? '
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, would you please.
Kate Aanenson: I'll let Deb.
Deb Porter. I think part of the problem sometimes in the information that we're presenting here at these
meetings. It hasn't been realized yet and we probably haven't announced it clearly enough, is that some of the
impact issues, for instance traffic projections, that sort of thing, are contained in this environmental assessment
document. This has not yet been released to the public for review, which is the point in having the public
hearing once you get this document released through your local libraries and City Hall and through the EQB
Monitor and so on. So it may seem as though we're discussing a lot of things here without having enough
background information but we're doing this up front, as all cities do, to come up with at least a preferred
thinking or route that the city has in mind of what they're planning to do and release all the information to the ,
public for them to read and then comment at the public hearing, which I think we're estimating would be
somewhere maybe late April, early May on this document. So I can understand there's some confusion and lack
of information for a lot of people to make comments. We haven't yet released the public documents so. Most
41
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
of the information for instance Mr. Johnson is talking about is in the document. There's some cost information.
Cost estimating is somewhat out of the scope of the environmental assessment documents. We try our best to
get some preliminary estimates but that's awfully difficult to do until you have more finalized engineering
1 information. And you get more into the right -of -way acquisition activities and that's all part of the EA actually.
But we do have some estimates on range of cost. We're hoping to release this in early April ... is the city's
recommendation on the preferred alternative and that again, even when it appears in this document, it's not a
final selection. It just gives the public some idea as to what your feelings are at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Any other? Okay. If seeing none, we'll come back to Council and
have some discussion in regard to the recommendations that we're going to be making. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well what are we trying to address then? Just simply the alignment issue?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We're looking for a preferred alignment for the frontage road and approval of the EA
document fast of all. Then you can ask questions regarding that or any of the things that were brought before us
as well. And then also the modification or adopt the Highway 5 corridor overlay zone.
' Kate Aanenson: I put that in there. I think at this point we'll just hold off on that issue ... you know obviously
we went ahead and we have a lot... happening along Highway 5 corridor. We want to get the overlay standards
in place... so we'll be bringing that back to you shortly but tonight you really, we would prefer that you...
Mayor Chmiel: Strictly the alignment.
Kate Aanenson: Strictly the alignment.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I'd be uncomfortable with the overlays and the land use tonight myself but as far as
the alignment goes. I've really tried to basically look at this and look at every piece of information that exists
' out there, and boy there's plenty of it. Talk about an issue that's been studied to death. The basic problem I
keep having I guess is I still have a real hard time getting past all of the land use assumptions that exist and
those land use assumptions to me have a great deal to do with the alignment of the road. And I don't think
' we've really had a good discussion of those land use assumptions, at least at the Council level yet. If I had to
state preference tonight in terms of an alignment, the way I would be leaning right now would be towards the
southern alignment simply because it leaves most of the options open and does not, how would I say, imply or
accept all those land use assumptions which I really still have some questions on. In reading a lot of the
information it appears that a lot of the premise to the north road is basically related to land use between the
north road and the highway.
Kate Aanenson: Well to go back to what Peter and Sue were talking about. I think part of the reason for the
northern frontage road is to allow for you to look at something besides another road. There's a lot of
development occurring in those two parcels... there's some existing natural features. Maybe create some
I landscaping buffers, especially along the edge of the pond. That was really the intent of pushing it to the north.
The Planning Commission struggled with that too and that's why ... but really you know as far as you get the
residential. The development east along, between Audubon and up to Galpin. There's some issues about
crossing... going through Mr. Hennessy's property. Whether you do the environmental and cross the creek
between VanDeVeire's and Conway's piece but that's always been shown as residential. Again, we have
predominantly residential until you get to the property that's owned by Fleet Farm and we did Sue, in the land
use recommendation, we did a site analysis for that and the one thing that was recommended that we didn't want
42
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
to see a large user on that site. We had it broken down to smaller office and we didn't want to see, this is the
same on the south side. We didn't want to see a large user on the other side where Opus is building either. I
mean that was eliminated from their property too...the large corner. So I agree with some of what you're saying.
The Planning Commission struggled with that too but towards that philosophy... was trying to maintain some of
the existing natural features before you look at the road. Pushing the road back...
Councilman Senn: But as I understand either route really maintains natural features. You know both routings,
at least as I've studied them, take the natural features surrounding the road into some pretty good consideration.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: You know and I think that's why it's down to these two alternatives but the underlying
assumption that I keep coming back to and then say okay, well. You want it removed so it's not part of like a
highway corridor. You know that may be a nice goal but where I keep struggling with that is then I look back
at the land use and I look back and the land use and I see geez, everybody has this here's the north road. Here's
the highway and the big assumption is there's a lot of multi- family housing between the north road and the
highway and they aren't large areas. Then I just kind of apply my personal test and I'm sorry, I don't really see
a lot of people having a burning desire to live in any kind of housing along a major highway.
Kate Aanenson: Except we know, at the Planning Commission meeting we've already seen Mr. Conway's
proposed development. It's not all multi- family on his piece of property. It's my understanding that Lundgren's
has an option on Mr. Dolejsi's property and they state that the northern alignment works for them and they'll
probably do at least some. I'm not sure if it's going to be all multi- family but they do own the property that
they're developing to the north and probably continuity of some of that coming to the south so I'm not sure that
it's all going to be multi - family because we put the road...
Councilman Senn: Kate, I don't know if it is either. Again that's, I'm just saying that's what I'm
uncomfortable with and yeah, and the golf course issue there, I've gone out and looked at that. I don't know
whether that's a real or not but I can look at the whole corridor and say who knows what's for real and what's
not.
Kate Aanenson: And the Planning Commission felt like if that's legitimate, he's ready to go forward, that would
be one area they would recommend...
Councilman Senn: It seems like a heck of a use for that site.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, and again that...
Councilman Senn: But if you settle on the north now it pretty much.
Kate Aanenson: No, what we're saying is that, as Deb had indicated that that would be preferred ... we put it out
and we get comments and we look at that more closely.
Councilman Senn: Yeah see and that's why I kind of bounce south because again that keeps the options open
and again, just from my standpoint that's what make me more comfortable at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other thing Mark?
43
t
f
L
1
I
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I certainly don't feel that we're making, I was glad to hear Deb say we're not making a
definite decision tonight. I also was on the task force committee and as I recall the vote between Alternative 1
and Alternative 2 was very close. And I think environmentally, I think Alternative 1 is a better route. I think
when you include, if you just look at the environment as the natural resources, I think Alternative 1 is the better
route. There are a lot of people that are affected and I guess quite honestly, as not as a task force member but
as a Council member I've got to consider the environment of the whole city. Having said that Kate, somebody
else that was on the task force help me out. Didn't we talk about that if alternative 2 was chosen, that it would
be as much as possible completely buffered from Highway 5 with berms or plantings?
Kate Aanenson: ...we talked about there'd probably be more acquisition because what we've done is created a
dead zone that you can't do anything in so there may actually be some more acquisition that you would have
to ... because it's unusable property.
' Councilman Mason: And did we ever come to any kind of agreement on that?
Kate Aanenson: I think we directed the consultant to look at some cost estimates and we just talked about
rough numbers but that would be something, if that's an alternative, that we may want to look at. But we are
creating more land that's basically unusable.
Councilman Mason: Well yeah. That's something, I think that's a very important part of this puzzle because
I'm sure there are people that are saying, we're doing that by alternate, well they were here tonight. Saying that
by alternative 1. You know, having said all that, I am a firm believer in the commissions and the task force and
I kind of feel like, kind of being between a rock and a hard place here because if I say I like alternative 2,
' that's saying I disagree totally with all the work that's been done and quite honestly nothing could be further
from the truth and I hope anyone that was on those commissions understands that. With the exception of the
west end, my inclination right now is to go with alternative 2 just for some of those stated reasons. Simply
' because when we look at, when I look I should say, at the whole picture, I see alternative 2 having less of an
impact on what's currently out there and who is currently out there. I do want to add, I see a need for a road
going all the way through. We're talking, what are we talking about in the year 2010? 35,000 people? I mean
in the city of Chan. Aren't we somewhere around there right now?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: To say that Highway 5, for those of us that live in the city and quite honestly don't enjoy
driving on Highway 5 now, I can't imagine I'd enjoy driving on it 10-15 years in the future. I do think we need
a road that goes through there and I don't think that road will be a 6 lane road in and out of the city of
Chanhassen. I quite honestly do not feel totally committed to alternative 2 right now. There are still a bunch of
questions that need to be answered but that certainly is where I'm leaning right now. I'm, no. The southern
route. Alternative 2 and where I would change that would be up towards the Highway 41 there because of some
traffic configurations. I think we discussed at that point it would, I would be tending to lean towards alternative
1. No, isn't that, yeah. Alternative 1.
Kate Aanenson: Swing to the north.
44
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Councilman Mason: Swing to the north but I think we also are some other issues on that property that need to
be addressed too but I'm right now I'm leaning towards alternative 2. The southern route.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I of course was real active with Bill Morrish when this all started and the concept of
breaking these roads off and designing this boulevard if you would, that was going to run north of the highway
to avoid this 4 or 5, 6 lane Fridley type atmosphere. What'd we call it, the Fridley syndrome I guess. We
wanted to avoid that. That's how it all started. So I guess I voted with Peter Olin and Planning Commission in
selecting number 1. But that was only after Paul and staff in truly some detail had gone over land uses on both
and how the acquisition costs played in and what the options were of those pieces of property. If you compared ,
them to what their zones were, what their use would be with either one, the northern route seemed to give us
that neighborhood road that Peter addressed and tried to accomplish what we were doing with the extension of
West 78th Street. And it was also I guess, as Mike had mentioned, a more environmentally sound one. It was
the better city street and gave us greater separation. And if you can take then, just take the land use as a
nebulous, non - subjective discussion at this point, I guess right now I'd favor the northern route to accomplish
what we'd like to do long term for the city in a visionary way. Alternative 2 is certainly acceptable to me. I
don't have any problem with it and I could go along with the Council if that was the majority but I think too,
what we need here to make the final decision is a very detailed discussion of land use and what the options
would be with both uses. And then I sat down with Paul Krauss one afternoon and really talked about what it's
zoned for. How it could or couldn't develop and as he explained the options that the owners would have, the ,
northern route continued to make sense to me. They did not cut anybody out. It allowed for quite a bit of
development and gave them quite a bit of options. Sometimes maybe more so than the southern route so right
now I guess I continue to favor the northern route which was recommended by Planning Commission and the
task force.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to make one comment that I forgot. The issue of cost has come up
and that's a very real issue and it is, I think I agree with you Don that it's paramount that we get some sort of
frontage road in to Lake Ann. I see cars turning in and out of there in the summer and it amazes me that we
haven't had a problem there yet. But cost, at least after Lake Ann is definitely an issue. A very big issue and
without funding, with federal funding I, long and hard look. Long and hand look. '
Councilman Wing: For what? ...project or just development?
Councilman Mason: Well I'm on record as saying, we've got to go. We've got to hook up to Lake Ann
somehow and I'd like to see it go to Audubon regardless. But after that, if we find out we don't have any
federal funds available, that's a whole other can of worms.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I guess I don't disagree with that Michael because that's some of the concerns I have. '
We're talking about the city purchasing right -0f - -way for the frontage road and access which was really originally
required to provide local access that we talked about and for the discussion that we had with the City and '
MnDot, it's necessary for us to work out with the parcels, will be the responsibilities of the city. And there
again too, I don't know what the costs are going to be. I have a real concern with that. The other areas that
we're talking, we're going to work with MnDoL Those figures I don't believe are completely and fully
consummated either to even do the share of the 50 %. Or is there some figures that's fairly reasonable.
Deb Porter. When you're speaking of 50 %, are you talking about construction funding dollars for Arboretum
45
1 City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
t Boulevard for the access road?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Deb Porter. I think our assumption has been since the beginning of the project that the predominant proportion
of the funding would be federal funds meaning approximately 80% of total funds. I don't believe that you are at
great risk of losing, or acquiring federal funds at some point. That's what has become the issue here during the
last 2 -3 years with MnDot is that it's not that projects no longer qualify for federal funds and will never receive
them. It's that they aren't receiving them as soon as they can plan. All projects pretty much have been delayed.
There's been a moratorium on a lot of building in some areas. There are no federal funds available at that time.
I can't imagine that you won't receive a large amount of federal funds at some point. It's that they're not
coming nearly as soon as we had originally forecast.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's some discussions I've also had with Chuck Seeger from MnDot. And there's a need
for funding throughout the entirety of the metro area and there are also other cities who have been in line
probably before us. And that too is some of my concerns because we've been moved back from where we were
' originally to 1998 and it could go beyond that. And so consequently some of that is a real concern to me as
well.
Deb Porter. I think what we talked with MnDot again, representatives from the Federal Highway Administration
about, in terms of what is the real likelihood of Chanhassen and some other communities in receiving federal
funds by the year 2000? A lot of the projects are planned for the year 1998 and so on. That now is the new
date for the Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction is 1998. It was 1995 I believe just as of a year ago that was our
projected date and that... Their feeling is that most projects that were promised federal funds, if you say
promised. At some point in the past you will also qualify for those in years to come. It's just that if they delay
4 or 5, possibly more years.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And as you're probably well aware I do sit on the Transportation Advisory Board for the
Met Council and I'm aware as to all these des that we're trying to get. And it's causing a lot of difficulty
throughout the metro area in coming up with total dollars. In fact they've also requested that the Governor cut
loose some of the dollars that they have to do some funding but I don't think you're likely to see that either.
Deb Porter. The best I guess, not a guarantee but the arrangement that MnDot has proposed to some cities and
Chanhassen being one of them, is to fund projects through what they call advance funding. Meaning that the city
would have to come up with funds on their own for construction if they wanted projects to happen at an earlier
date than what MnDot has them planned for based on their funding requirements. That advance money means
that the city goes ahead and builds it. At some point in the future, maybe 4 years later, MnDot then reimburses
them for their agreed share. So in fact you receive the dollars then at a later date and whatever those...
1 Mayor Chmiel: In looking at the routing in itself, I too know the environmental concerns that were based on the
northern route as well and looking at the southern route and I too sort of put my chips right now into that
southern route because I think that that to me looks like the most feasible and probably, and hopefully the less
impact on a good share of the people living within that particular area Those crossovers that we talked about
in the center portions there, are something that we looked at rather strongly and I too sat in on an awful lot of
these meetings that they've had. But as I, if I were to hang my hat on anything presently, I'd hang it on the
southern route. So with that, any other discussion?
46
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Councilman Wing: No, let's vote on something.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the way I feel. Do you want to make a recommendation?
Councilman Senn: I'll move on the southern route.
Kate Aanenson: ...that endorsement or approve of the EA document also?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, for purposes of yeah.
Deb Porter. Right. We include within the Environmental Assessment would be the issue...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: I'll second it. I opposed it but I'll second it. What I don't like, what occurred here ,
happened the same thing at Planning in that this task force spent month after month after month discussing the
issues of land use and then the Planning Commission was given it and they had to kind of reinvent the wheel. '
Now we tried to push it through there and kind of have to reinvent the wheel there. I'll go along with the
southern route but I think it's really important that we look at these land use issues and development potentials
and costs so that, that's why I'm willing to go along with this without any effort. I mean the southern route is
fine. At least we're not creating a 6 lane highway and that's my big concern. But I think there's some real '
issues here that favored the northern route that we haven't heard, haven't talked about.
Mayor Chmiel: The other concern that I might have too Dick is on the west end as to where that road would
come out onto TH 41. Either the southern or the northern and part of my concern with the southern is if there
would be stacking on that particular road for accessibility and would it be better to go to the northern portion of
that. rc
Councilman Senn: I thought either one was acceptable.
Councilman Mason: Well I talked about the northern route at the tail end there.
Councilman Wing: Who made the motion?
Councilman Senn: I made the motion but going t I'm oin back to at least in all the information I've read, from a '
traffic design standpoint, both meet the standards. Okay. Whether it's the north or the southern route. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
James Unruh: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: That's my understanding so I mean that's. '
Councilman Wing: But the southern one doesn't tie into the proposed road coming across to the west.
47
t
1
1
I
1
C �
J
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Deb Porter. Continuing west from Trunk Highway 41.
Councilman Senn: 41?
Councilman Wing: 41.
Councilman Senn: What road?
Councilman Mason: I don't know that we need to get tied up in that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well eventually there's going to be something there but we don't know where that is. Okay,
any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call the question.
Resolution #94 -40: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the southern route,
Alternative #2 as the preferred alignment for the frontage road north of Highway 5 and to approve the
EA document. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Wing: That's number one. Do we have to do any of these others?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to go through 2 or 3 now.
Kate Aanenson: No, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: As far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Mason: When do we see this coming back before us? I mean who knows but.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to spend some time on a work session.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think a work session would probably be the ideal time.
Councilman Senn: I mean I'm really, just this issue and.
Mayor Chmiel: Come up with some of the things and some of the answers and some of the questions that we
have and in order to do that, I think it'd be advisable.
Councilman Mason: When do you see a finalizing what alternative we choose?
Deb Porter. Once you issue the EA document you have to wait approximately 3 weeks before you can have a
public hearing... comment period is open for another 2 weeks after that and at whatever City Council meeting
follows that last 2 weeks, it's possible you could make a decision at that time. It's not often done that quickly
because you will have a fair amount of agency review and if possible...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would think that that would be an aggressive way to move with it. And I don't think it
will go.
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Deb Porter. Yeah and I think we may be looking more at July and August —and discuss the land use issues
further. That kind of goes back and forth. You know each decision making body hasn't heard all the...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Do you want me to give you a few minutes to clear your
boards so we can start with the next process? As it looks right now, I would think that the Chanhassen Estates
is probably going to take us to 11:00, if not maybe a little bit beyond. So if anyone is staying yet and still,
unfortunately for the preliminary plat for Minnewashta Parkway, Minnewashta Landings. Item 11 which is the
Wendy's and Edina Realty office building. Amendment to the City Code. Resolution to increase wetland
alteration permit fees. Resolution for the wetland buffer monumentation. I don't.
Councilman Senn: Don, a question.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe that that will be heard this evening. But the next one that will be on the agenda
is the item number 9. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Is there any chance that we could maybe get through 9 and 10?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm amenable to it. I would go along with item number 10 then.
Councilman Senn: Because there's a lot of people here on both of those. I'd hate to have to see them come
back and sit through.
Councilman Wing: I want a commitment that they're not going to leave.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on with item number 9.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CHANHASSEN ESTATES STREET, DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 93 -10, AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Littfin
Martin & Lora Wade
Gerald Fischer
David & Joanne Malkovicb
Keith Anderson
8052 Erie Spur
8028 Erie Avenue
8042 Erie Avenue
8039 Dakota Lane
8043 Cheyenne
i•
LJ
n
L�
J
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Joe Betz
8107 Dakota Lane
Jerry Griep
8002 Dakota Avenue
Bill ?
8105 Dakota Lane
Amy Dvorak
8003 Dakota Avenue
Allison & Randy Blackowiak
8116 Erie Circle
Rhonda Faidley
8117 Erie Circle
George Thomas
8029 Cheyenne Avenue
Dan Orinser
8020 Erie Avenue
Dave Tiohey
9049 Cheyenne Avenue
Tim Herberg
8113 Erie Circle
Mike Kraus
8037 Cheyenne Avenue
Bill Kraus
8008 Cheyenne Avenue
Pau Hegstrom
8005 Dakota Avenue
Gerald Wassink
8004 Dakota Avenue
Kathie ?
8025 Erie Avenue
Tom & Kristie Kotsonas
8001 Cheyenne
Steve Peterson
8021 Dakota Avenue
Gene Gegner
8025 Dakota Avenue
Vince Venne
8022 Dakota Avenue
Bob Seward
8031 Cheyenne Avenue
R & Nina Cottrell
8044 Cheyenne Avenue
Phil & Rhonda Hennen
8110 Dakota Lane
Jan & Jim Gildner
8003 Cheyenne Avenue
Gerald Kuant
8036 Dakota Lane
Kathy Dorfner
8026 Cheyenne Avenue
Lynne Pilgrim
8026 Dakota Avenue
Conrad Fiskness
8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Charles Folch: ...you will recall that last October we had a public hearing on the feasibility study for the
proposed—At that hearing the... Subsequent to that hearing Council ordered the project plans and specifications
to be prepared by a consultant engineer. In February of this year the preliminary project plans were completed
and available for review. As such, all the property owners were notified. Two public or informational
neighborhood meetings that were held to preview the plans. At these neighborhood meetings there arose some
concern over a number of issues related to the project. For example tree loss, road width...etc. Staff and the
project engineer felt that it was important that if changes and deviations were to be made to the standards and
the project's element and scope that was presented at the feasibility time, that it was important that all of the
property owners were informed as such and solicited their input accordingly. And as such a detailed survey was
sent out to all the residents in Chan Estates subdivision. The survey and the results are included in your packets
along with all of the written correspondence that we received from any of the property owners since this project
planning process has begun. The project consultants are David Mitchell and Laurie McCroskey are here tonight
to present an overview of the project elements, the results of the survey and an updated cost estimate for the
proposed project. And with that I'll turn floor over to David.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
David Mitchell: Thank you Charles. Mayor, members of the Council. Briefly what I'd like to go through is the
plan that we've prepared to date. Have Laurie talk a little bit about some of the tree issues that have come out
50
! I
n
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
of this. And then also go through the survey for the benefit of the public that is here. As you'll recall, last fall,
City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specs for the street reconstruction. For Chanhassen Estates 1st
and 2nd Addition. 3rd Addition, which was a small lot division over in the 1st division and then Wisely Estates,
which is another lot division in the 2nd Addition. Basically we're looking at the reconstruction of approximately
7,200 lineal feet of street. As part of the project it was deemed that it should be also include the reconstruction
of a watermain throughout the entire area. The water superintendent has recorded 18 watermain breaks in this
area since construction. This is a very high number of watermain breaks for this type of area. Also proposed as
part of this construction are portions of sanitary sewer reconstruction basically through this area. Also
throughout the area well be looking at the sanitary sewer and doing testing and sealing that will not require
open cut. There are some small spot repair areas that will require open cut but the area that you see highlighted
in red is the primary area for sanitary sewer. As stated earlier, watermain would be replaced throughout the
entire area. As a part of any street reconstruction project of this nature, we would propose to improve upon the
existing drainage system in the area. Some individuals have expressed concerns with ponding and the
intersections. Those type of angles are things that would be taken care of as a part of this project. Currently
proposed storm sewer is really taken up by two systems within the area. This being the northerly system that
ties into an existing 42 inch line that goes down to Rice Marsh Lake. The second system, this is really an
improvement of an existing system. The second system is in a lot of senses a new system. It's very limited.
This time there's existing, at this intersection that goes out this way we plan to reconstruct that. Bring that all
the way down through Erie Circle and out through the park entrance. This line that goes out through here is
currently undersized and we felt that that would be, to upgrade that line would cost much money as well as
disturbance to those particular residences affected. As you'll recall back last fall there was really no opposition
to the projects. Some questions were asked regarding tree removal. At that time I made an estimate of
approximately 35 to 45 trees being removed. That unfortunately was an error on my part. As we prepared
detailed plans and specifications for this area, it was found that that number was significantly higher. With these
plans it's proposed as a 31 foot street from back of curb to back of curb, which is a city standard. We are
estimating the approximate removal and this is a worst case removal, of approximately 120 trees. Maybe a little
history as far as some of the thought process that Laurie and I have gone through with tree removal. What you
see in this overhead is a presentation of the existing trees in relationship to the existing road. In general terms,
the existing trees are approximately 7 to 8 feet behind the proposed curb and gutter. With the soils in the
Chanhassen area it's required that we'd be doing a 3 foot subcut to bring the roads up to today's standards.
With the oversizing required for that excavation, we are looking at excavating at least 3 feet beyond the back of
the curb and optimally that would be 6 feet. We're looking at again I would say a minimum of 3 feet beyond
the curb just to construct the road section. That is the primary reason for the tree loss with this project. At this
time I'll introduce Laurie McCroskey who is a landscape architect with our firm. When it was found that we
were getting to be affecting this many trees, I got Laurie involved from a landscaping aspect. Asked her to
physically look at some of these trees, which she's done. This slide represents the trees proposed to be removed.
Of the trees shown in green are trees, let me start at the top. Trees shown in red are likely lost at any width.
Those trees are trees that we're anticipating coming out even at a 26 foot width,which was a width that was
proposed by some of the residents. The trees highlighted in blue are trees lost at widths wider than 26, i.e. 28 or
31 foot. And the green trees are trees that are additional trees lost at a 31 foot width. At this point I'll let
Laurie talk a little bit as far as the condition of the trees and the tree replacement plan.
Laurie McCroskey: Thank you David. Mr. Mayor and Council members. All of us became really concerned
about tree loss on this project. We're working in a residential neighborhood that's established. It's been around
for 20 years and it's got some trees that are of a fair size and contribute to a character in that neighborhood.
One of the first things that we did was we really went out and looked at every single one of the trees. I've got a
picture of almost every one along the boulevard. Dave has talked about the trees that will be impacted. They
51
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
are all ash trees, almost all of them. And some of them are in great shape and others are in very poor shape.
They are bad form. A lot of them have already suffered wind damage and we felt that, in our fast go through,
our recommendation was to remove all the trees just because of the impact from road construction is going to
get too close here. Just too close to the existing road. They are anywhere from 4 to 6 feet back from the
existing curb. Any kind of construction that happens within that tree zone is going to impact them enough that
they will probably be damaged in the future. That was our lust recommendation. Looking at the condition of
the trees, which the majority of them are not very good and they were too close to the road. They're going to
suffer construction impact. We, our fast proposal... neighbors that we take them all down and replace the street
trees at a ratio of 2 to 1 and establish a, re- establish a residential character. After a lot of discussion with the
neighbors and the concerns that were raised, we would like to propose a staged removal plan in which we take
down the majority of the trees with the red dots. That we know are just too close to the road and would be
impacted by construction or are going to be damaged. And then as we go through construction to look at the
remaining trees and determine whether the impact to them is going to be so great that they will not live for any
' length of time after the road is constructed So we have a plan where we'll take down trees at first and I think
that's approaching maybe 65 to 70 trees. And then we can stage removal as the project goes forward. A
replacement plan has been proposed and replacement for trees is being suggested at a 2:1 ratio. So for every
tree lost, we'll put 2 back and that will make a placement of about 3 trees spaced 50 foot on center is what that
tree replacement plan would provide. We're also suggesting that 5 species of trees be planted We're looking at
red maples, small white oak, hackberry, have more ash, and a form of honey locust. That species. Chanhassen,
as you all know, has some real heavy clay soils and there aren't a lot of tree varieties that will grow in that type
of soils. So those are 5 of them. There are a couple more and one of them is silver maple. That was a street
tree that we didn't want to consider. So we've got, I think good trees that will live in this neighborhood. There
also have been suggested that they are arranged in a pattern that's shown on the overhead. We've broken them
up into massings and clumps of about 400 feet in spacing so you've got one stretch of red maple and then
another stretch of oak and then hackberry and combine them throughout the neighborhood in that way. Really
trying to make an attempt to establish, re- establish that neighborhood character. It's going to take a while for
the trees to get big and we're looking at putting in 2 1/2 to 3 inch trees to start with so we'll get some sizes at
the beginning but it would take 15 years for them to reach the size that they are now. However I think you
would have more variety. You'd also, if this street plan is developed or accepted, you're going to establish some
kind of character with the continuity of species along the roadway. From design perspective and in my opinion
it's important to establish some sort of similar visual character. That's why the plan is suggesting that we keep
the segment in oak and a segment in maple and so forth. So I think that there's been some compromise in terms
of tree loss and we're going to look at ... and see if they'll come down. Some are coming down regardless. If
there's a 2:1 replacement plan suggested with 5 varieties of trees there that we feel will re- establish the
neighborhood character once they're installed. And I know that we had many, many comments in terms of the
surveys that have been—and Dave has more of the information to share with you on that regard. And I'm here
to answer questions later on.
Dave Mitchell: Thanks Laurie. I'll continue with some more aspects of the general project. First I'd like to
update the cost for the Council. As we're looking at right now, the estimated project cost which would include
engineering and the city's administrative cost, the breakdown. I won't go through that piece by piece but the
total project cost is $1.945 million or $1, 945, 000.00. This is approximately $400,000.00 higher than what was
presented in August or October. October at the public hearing and the feasibility report. Really there are four
primary reasons for this. In 1994, amendment to the city's standard specifications, the city is requiring draintile
under all streets again for subsurface drainage because of the soil types within the city of Chanhassen. That's a
large ticket item for this increase. Also the tree issue has increased this total project cost. Tree removal. Tree
replacement. Another issue is the increased cost in materials for various types of piping materials. Associated
52
f
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
with this is a revised assessment. As part of the storm sewer assessment you'll note that the street assessment
has remained the same. The storm sewer assessment has been increased by $200.00 for the single family
dwelling. This was I believe $997,000.00 last fall when it was presented. And that again is primarily due to
increased material costs and a portion of the draintile. As a schedule that was outlined, and I've elaborated on
that to show some of the things that have happened here. In March of 1983 the city sent out a survey to all the
residents simply asking them if they wanted us to study the reconstruction of streets within the area. That survey
came back with the majority of individuals in favor of that. So subsequently, May 10th of 1993 this Council
ordered the preparation of the feasibility report by ourselves. In September that feasibility report was received.
September 29th there was an informational meeting and as you will recall, on October l lth, a public hearing was
held. And also at that time, not hearing anyone speaking out adamantly against this project, Council authorized
us to prepare plans and specifications. One week after that, our office mailed a resident update letter which is
common for us to do in a project of this type. Letting the residents in the area know what was going to be
happening with the results of surveys and the fact that a project was proceeding. Again on December lst, a
second update letter was mailed. February 8th an information meeting was held at which a number of these
issues that have been brought up surfaced. We held a second informational meeting on March 7th which
brought us into a survey that the Council has in their packet. Council has a copy of the survey as it was sent out
and a tabulation of the results. What we'd like to do at this point is go through some of the findings of the
survey and I've got a number of other overheads here if Council has any other questions on any particulars, we
can talk about those at that time. First of all we had a very good response, as we see it, from a survey point.
We had 71% of the individuals who, or 71% of the properties return surveys. 29% did not return surveys. A
number of those I guess a reason they may not have returned, some individuals may have felt that they were
demonstrating against the project by not returning them. Other individuals I'm sure were on vacation during this
time period. Other individuals may not have cared. Again, we're not sure why some of these responses were
not returned. One of the first questions on the survey was, the preferred street width by the residents. Again,
the 31 foot width is a city standard. 16% of the residents, or of the surveys returned. Again, all these numbers
that will be presented are from the surveys that were returned. 16% preferred the 31 foot width. A majority,
55% preferred 28 foot and 29% preferred the 26 foot width. Second question that was asked was, curb and
gutter type. That was virtually split down the middle. We received 91 surveys back of which there was one no
response and 45 preferred surmountable and 45 preferred barrier. As Charles pointed out in his report, that was
somewhat by division or by Ist and 2nd Addition, The 1st Addition, by a majority preferred the barrier and the
2nd Addition, by majority preferred the surmountable. As we looked at the total area, it was a 50/50 split.
'
We've got some information regarding no parking. A majority of individuals preferred that no parking be
implemented on the 26 foot width. On the odd side of the street. Again, this may become a moot point, as
Charlie pointed out in his staff report in that really a majority of people did not prefer the 26 foot width.
Another question was asked regarding no parking. 40% of the people stated that they did strongly oppose no
parking. And again that's just in a sense a moot issue at this point. Regarding the trees. Property owners were
asked if they would prefer the trees being removed per the plan or if they would prefer the trees to be removed
in a staged pattern. It was really two questions. Looking at the preferred removal of the trees. Again, 45%
preferred removal in accordance with the plan and implementing a new tree plan. Replacement plan in
accordance with the plans prepared by us. 55% preferred that this not be the case. Similarly when we asked the
question on staged removal, a few individuals, 51% preferred staged removal. 49% preferred no removal.
Again, some of the reasons for the no responses to this were individuals not wanting any trees removed so they
responded no to both questions regarding tree removal. Again we wanted to get the feel for the residents as far
as what they actually thought of the tree that existed in their boulevard. So we asked them, if the tree in the
boulevard was in good health and form. 61% felt that it was. 39% flat out said no, it's not. When asked if
residents would like to have that existing boulevard tree removed, 48% responded yes. 52% responded no. If
you remember the previous slide, there were a lot more people who said their trees were in good health. What
53
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
we're seeing here is that a number of individuals, even though they felt their tree was in good health and form,
also preferred that their tree be removed as part of the plan with the implementation of the tree replacement plan.
Again, as Laurie discussed the proposed replacement plan. 63% were in favor of the tree replacement plan.
37% said no and offered alternative species that they would like to see as a replacement. Again that concludes
the results of the survey. Council has had a little more time to digest this than the residents have but I guess as
a side light, this has been an interesting exercise that I believe has really put some validity in some of the
comments that were made at informational meetings. Also I believe it takes some of the validity out of those
comments. Also included for Council's review are all the comments that were received as a part of this survey.
Again, those were as received on March 23rd. I have received a couple other surveys that really don't change
the results of the survey. At this point I'll turn it over to Council for questions of Laurie or myself or Charles.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. What I'd like to do is to open this up for discussion but I'd like to limit the
time that we'll discuss the proposed project. But if you could just limit it to at least 3 minutes and give us at
least your consensus and your opinion within that. I know that we've also received from the residents of
Chanhassen Estates regarding the concerns that are here and at least I've had an opportunity to read that since
I've gotten here in the Chambers. So with that I'll open it up and please just state your.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: I wonder if it would speed things up at all if we kind of said, at least at this point where
we're at. I wonder if there might not be a little more agreement or.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, yeah. I know where I'm at on this whole thing. I've driven it myself two different times
and I've gone with Charles as well. I've looked at the trees. I've looked at the streets. The 1st Addition is
really in dire shape and I would prefer seeing us get that segment done. Along with that I'd like to see a
barrier curb go in. I didn't know if that was my watch going off or the beeps are going. But anyway, I've
looked at the trees and some of those trees are nice trees. They're good trees. There are some that are still
questionable. Some of the concerns some of the people had, the meeting that I also sat down here with, a
neighborhood meeting. Was the fact of possibly cutting those trees on the curb side and cutting the roots and
trimming the trees up. To me that's a way you could go but I think there could be some other problems with
that. Specifically in gusting or strong winds or tornadoes that we have, the root base is no longer there and
those trees would just automatically go right towards the residences. And that I have some concerns with. From
' a liability aspect as well. In looking at what is there presently with the 2nd Addition. 2nd Addition I didn't
think was in too bad of shape. I don't know how many people are here from the 2nd Addition. Okay. I looked
at that rather closely. There's some problems with some of the curbs where they are sinking. But my
suggestion with that would be to leave it sit as is. Let it go for another 5-6 years and do some maintenance and
some patching of those streets and not do it at this time. Although take into consideration 6 years later the costs
are going to escalate again and that's going to go up a little higher. And you can almost figure roughly another
10% per year is the norm that we used to figure within industry and I would, is that a fairly?
David Mitchell: It's not quite that much for construction...
Mayor Chmiel: So that's another thing to look at by itself. But I would be willing to go on those particular
parts. Richard.
1
54
Don Ashworth: If I may. We're not proposing to assess the cost of the trees.
David Mitchell: No we're not.
Councilman Senn: Oh we aren't?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
David Mitchell: The proposed assessments for the street portion are, it's a rate that was determined to be the
anticipated increased value in the property as a result of the ... at the time that those rates were put together, no
tree replacement plan was in place. I
Councilman Senn: So the increased cost in the project, by the trees and the other things we've talked about, are
55 1
0
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Wing: It seems looking at the survey and the group that's here, we'd be relatively safe if we did
only number 1. 28 foot road with barrier curb and staged the trees and left phase 2 out of it altogether at this
point. I guess that's where I would stand at this point.
Councilman Mason: I'm in agreement with that. My only thing is, I think if we're going to do it, we've got to
do the watermain too. I mean just because, if we go ahead and tear.
Mayor Chmiel: Well everything contained with the 1st Addition is going to have to be done.
Councilman Mason: Right. Right, right. To not do the watermain and then have to tear up the road 6 months
later doesn't seem like too good of an idea but I don't have any trouble at all with working on number 1 with
the 28 feet and the barrier curb.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I have no problem with the barrier curb either. As far as the tree replacement goes. I
don't know whether it's possible or not but maybe we should be looking at our tree fund to replace it. I mean
this is reforestation at it's best I think. I don't think this is something we should be charging back to the
residents through the assessments one way or the other. They've put a lot into the trees that are out there and
we do have a budget for that sort of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Well those trees, the existing trees that are there were put in by, if I'm wrong tell me, by the
developer. And they were all put within the boulevard section, which is in city right -of -way.
Councilman Senn: Yeah which unfortunately is water over the dam because the developer's not around anymore
and.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's right.
be
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean I have a hard time turning around and telling the residents they should
responsible for it and just think since we have that fund, maybe we should look at using it to get a good caliber
of tree in there and do something. I don't know. To me that's as good a use of those funds as the other things
'
so it's an idea for whatever it's worth.
Don Ashworth: If I may. We're not proposing to assess the cost of the trees.
David Mitchell: No we're not.
Councilman Senn: Oh we aren't?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
David Mitchell: The proposed assessments for the street portion are, it's a rate that was determined to be the
anticipated increased value in the property as a result of the ... at the time that those rates were put together, no
tree replacement plan was in place. I
Councilman Senn: So the increased cost in the project, by the trees and the other things we've talked about, are
55 1
0
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
i
totally going back on us basically?
David Mitchell: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So there's no additional cost. That rate to the resident has not changed?
David Mitchell: For the street assessment. The storm sewer has increased slightly because of some of the
draintile issues and increased costs of materials.
Mayor Chmiel: One of the other concerns I had too in saying with the 1st Addition to the 2nd Addition, is that
the cost per se would not change for the assessments. Maybe you'd just like to elaborate on that a little bit
1 Charles because I had some discussion.
Charles Folch: That's correct Mr. Mayor. If this project is split up where only the 1st Addition is done,
costwise, I mean basically unit quantities is basically cut in half but so there's no real affect on assessments with
the 1st Addition properties.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Are you suggesting that if we do the 2nd Addition 5 -6 years from now, we'll hold the
assessment rate at the same level?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I don't think you can because of the costs. It'd be nice to do but that's not the real world.
' Councilman Senn: No, I understand. I just wanted to clarify that.
Councilman Wing: So we're really only discussing number, phase number 1 so phase number 2 doesn't have to
address this tonight because they're really not...
Mayor Chmiel: No, if they're in agreement with it. They may want to go ahead and pursue it and get it in, I
don't know. I mean at least that's what I had looked at. So if there's some, still some concern after knowing at
' least where we're coming from, step up please. Indicate your name and your address and tell us your concern.
Bill Kraus: Hi. Mr. Mayor, Council members. Bill Kraus at 8008 Cheyenne. One thing Dave that was not
talked about tonight in the watermains was the fact and you did not put the display up, was the fact that where
the existing watermain is and where they're proposing to put it brings that construction a lot farther into the
resident's yard. Now it was suggested at the informational meeting that the watermain could be put on the other
side of the street and limit, there would be not that big construction into the residential part but containing to the
street part. And that wasn't even brought up or even suggested.
David Mitchell: That's a good point and what I did after the last public meeting, for Council's information, the
question was asked if we could save more trees by relocating the watermain. As the plan existed, it's proposed
to be 2 foot outside of the existing or on the house side of the existing watermain for ease of construction. What
I did after that last informational meeting is I went back and looked at it a little bit closer and what I found was
that at a width of 26 feet, it would be prudent for us to do that. At a width of 28 feet, the watermain trench and
the subcut required for the street are basically equal so we're may not saving anything by doing it that way for
56
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
the 28 or the 31 foot. I
Bill Kraus: Do you have that on a slide anywhere to show that? It's kind of hard to believe. From the slide
that you had shown last time, it looked like it would be quite a, it would be quite a savings. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead, while he's looking.
Conrad Fiskness: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Conrad Fiskness. I reside at 8033 Cheyenne
,
Avenue. After the previous, or the last informational meeting there were several residents of the neighborhood
that were concerned that the project might run into snags and there was an effort put together to generate a letter
and a number of signatures were secured. I believe your packet does contain copies of that. Subsequent to the
submission of the letters there are several more signatures that have come about. I kind of by default have
selected I guess to deliver this. I have the originals of those letters which I will leave with you here. There are
now 4 letters total. There were 3 I think that were submitted. The fast one is primarily, not totally exclusively
but I would say all but 2 or 3 are from Cheyenne Avenue in the lst Addition. The second letter is primarily
from Dakota Avenue, with one or two exceptions. The third letter is from, signed by residents of Cheyenne
Avenue in the 2nd Addition who are concerned that they're going to get left out. And the fourth letter is signed
by about half of the people are from Dakota Avenue and the other half are from Erie and you have not seen that
letter. That is one that just came about over the weekend. The jist of the letters are basically that the project
should be done. It should be done correctly and it should be done quickly. And then with regard to the street,
which the survey would support, everybody that signed these is anxious to see the 28 foot width. So I don't
know who I should give this letter to.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll take it.
Conrad Fiskness: Alright. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: ...2nd Addition?
Mayor Chmiel: Part of it is 2nd Addition with the support of it, yeah. Some.
'
David Mitchell: If I may Mr. Mayor and Council, I'd like to address Mr. Kraus' concern with the watermain.
What he's referring to is we've got 3 different trench options when it comes to the replacement of the
watermain. I've lost my pointer so I'll have to walk on the track here. The three options, and these were
verified through a contractor, are to, thanks Kate. Have a trench box and again I want to emphasize that we
cannot dictate to a contractor his means of construction. We can ask him to save this tree but we can't dictate
the means of construction. This trench line here represents what a contractor would construct as a minimum
trench. This is the heavy line or the solid line is his standard trench. Mr. Kraus' concern is that, and I guess
I'm making the assumption that we're going with a minimum trench or box in a case that we're trying to save a
tree. Mr. Kraus' concern is that the extent of this trench is extending out beyond what the subcut for the road is.
Now this subcut indicates a 31 foot road. Again this distance, or right in here at the pointer may not be the foot
'
and a half that we're narrowing up the street but it's not significant enough to go through a total redesign of the
road. I guess what I'm saying is, that the contractor's going to cheat this a little bit so he's not beyond the
subcut required in the road. Did that address?
Bill Kraus: No. If I may.
57
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
David Mitchell: I guess what I'm saying is we're going to lose this are due to the subcut before we're going to
lose it to the watermain.
Bill Kraus: I thought when we had talked earlier, if I may, if we were to put the pipe which has to be 10 feet
from the sanitary, if I'm correct. The position of this box is like this with the pipe here because that's the room
that they need but if we were to put the pipe here, with nothing inbetween, the box could be more centered and
as you can see, the box and the trench would not have to be any wider than it would have to be just for the
subcut.
David Mitchell: And I guess what I'm saying is that's the case here too. Is that the trench isn't going to be any
wider than the subcut of the road.
Bill Kraus: Okay.
Resident: The street is going to be 3 feet narrower than what you're showing.
David Mitchell: A foot and a half on each side. If in fact the Council orders that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
Resident: Mr. Mayor and Council and Mr. Ashworth. I've got a petition in front of you ... I represent about 14
homes. I should say the majority of 14 homes in the 2nd Addition so I can be very brief now based on what
I've just heard here. 12 out of 14 homes that I personally surveyed and have signed petitions for all you folks,
are in favor of resurfacing the road on Dakota Circle and Dakota Lane. By that we mean ... an inch or two and
then resurfacing it because it is quite bumpy and there's quite a few little potholes and bumps and it's been quite
a while since it's been maintained in that regard. We would like to see it resurfaced and possibly consider a
major overall in about 10 years or so or however long you feel that a resurfacing shall ... Beyond that I'll just
' simply say that we've been a little bit frustrated. We've been quite surprised that you are the fast person that
has recognized that the 2nd Addition is 10 years newer and has curbing and has a little different situation to deal
with than the 1st Addition does. I'm glad that you did because it could have jeopardized the 1st Addition and
the street which they need very badly. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, one of the aspects of resurfacing, from at least my understanding is if we go through
' that process. I can understand doing patchwork and necessary items as such. But what about the resurfacing?
Basically that's not going to last for any length of time.
Charles Folch: That's correct. The pavement management study which was completed on every street in the
city two years ago indicated that all of the streets in Chan Estates basically were in a condition, and there were a
number of different criteria that each street was evaluated on in determining the condition of the street in terms
of the rating system priority in strategizing repair but bottom line is, for these streets, an overlay, whether you do
an overlay or whether you just rock, fill and patch potholes and things like that, within the next 1 to 5 years you
basically are going to be the same situation. And an overlay really is not an economically effective means for
dealing with the condition of the road...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
David Mitchell: What I've shown here for the benefit of Councilman Wing is the break between the 1st and 2nd
1
58
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Additions. And as such the 1st Addition is Dakota Avenue and the north 2/3 of Cheyenne and then the 2nd
Addition entails all of Erie, the south 1/3 of Cheyenne, Dakota Lane and Erie Circle. And Erie Spur.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks.
Amy Dvorak: Amy Dvorak and I reside at 8003 Dakota Avenue. I have attended all of the meetings that have
been held on this since last fall and I just wanted to point out, I think there was one error quoted tonight and that
is that originally 25 trees was listed to be possibly lost in this whole. As stated in the Villager from last
October ... I have concern over the replacement of the trees, the 2 to 1. In my particular lot we're going to lose 2
trees and that means they would replace with 4. We have a beautiful landscaped yard and we've invested in that
and, as many other residents have. We would request that you install larger trees instead of doubling the number
of trees that are there. That it visually and aesthetically increases the value of our home and not decreases.
Many of the trees that are closer to the house will look silly if you put 4 trees right out in front. We in
particular have a cedar fence that's been there since the house was built. Putting 4 trees right in front of that
would look really silly and I'd really appreciate if you would make that addendum to the plan. Also I think it's
only fair that these are our homes. That we would have a choice in the tree that would be placed on our
property. We had an information meeting here and we had a vote by all the residents that attended and it was
even higher attendance than what you see this evening. And it was a unanimous vote that the residents be able
to choose their tree. Yes it was.
Resident: Of the choices that the city gave us.
Amy Dvorak: Yes, of the choices that the city gave us.
important.
Resident: That's
Amy Dvorak: Okay. Of the 5 or 6 species that were recommended for that area The other issue that's not
been addressed tonight is the return of the Chanhassen Estates sign that was removed when Lake Drive was
installed. We would request that that be replaced. Also that if shrubs and fences are destroyed or misplaced,
they be put back at the city's cost and not the resident's cost. That was initially discussed in the first meeting
back in October and since we've been told that that would not be included. When originally, at the first meeting
it was said that it was...I personally do not believe that the watermains need to be replaced. I work with the City
of Edina and they had 3 watermains break right near where I work this winter. I called the City Engineer. I
asked him how long can watermains be effective? He gave me a time of 50 to 100 years. The watermains in
our area are 25 years old. Half of what the low range for a watermain is. I asked him why do watermains
,
break. One of the reasons they felt, they've had watermains breaking quite heavily this winter was because of
the large variance in temperature. From 35 below to 30 above. And also soil movement. We all know that in
Chanhassen there's a lot of beautiful lakes and a lot of moist soil. They're going to continue to move whether
they're new or they're old. I also would like to say that when the survey was done for the width of streets, if
you were to review the width of streets for Dakota Avenue, which is mostly 26 feet in width. Not 28. And the
residents on those streets requested that they be kept at 26 feet in width. To keep the traffic slow because that's
a street that people come in on. That's the street that I live on. I have two small children and I would prefer to
have the traffic slower, not faster. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if I might just comment. One issue brought up in terms of shrubs and fencing. It
59
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' has been and continues to be the city's policy that if there's like a wood fence or some sort of fence like that,
that's typically removed during construction and reinstalled. But on all reconstruction projects we notify the
people as we have at the feasibility time. We would send out another letter prior to construction. Do you have
shrubs and things like that. Landscaping in your boulevard area that's within an encroachment area, that it's up
to the residents to remove those shrubs and move them back off of the right -of -way. We do not replace small
shrubs and arborvitae and things like that.
' Councilman Mason: Charles, that's in right -of -way right?
Charles Folch: In right -of -way, right.
Councilman Mason: Now if the city were to damage anything out of the right -of -way, the city would take care
of it.
' Charles Folch: That's right. If we're outside the right -of -way, we have to acquire an easement.
Councilman Wing: And do you agree that the cast iron pipes in that area with those soils should last 100 years?
Charles Folch: Well you know I guess I've been hearing this quote from this infamous City Engineer of Edina
but I guess in looking at some of the digouts that we've had from watermain replacement, in the southwest
metro here it's really high corrosive soils. Eden Prairie has the same problem. Minnetonka has experienced
some problems. Basically that's... southwest are all wrapping new watermain pipe with poly protection for
corrosion. We're also using ... which is a little more accommodating to soil movement than a cast iron pipe is.
But that's just what we've seen and we work with it here day in and day out.
Steven Peterson: Members of the Council. I'm Steven Peterson. I live at 8021 Dakota Avenue. If I could
impress one thing upon all of you it would be that if we're going to do this, let's do it right and let's do the
watermain. There have been so many breaks. Terrible. You all know that I believe. I heard rumors about not
replacing the watermain before tonight. And I would rather see the street not be done if we're just going to do
the street over again only to dig it up and patch and repair. I don't believe that's the way we should do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Steve. Anyone else?
' Bill ?: Bill ... again. Just a quick rebuttal to what Charles is saying. He continually gives us the impression that
our choices here are between everything and nothing. And like you sir, we would like the choice between
something and something and what we're feeling in our neighborhood is that our streets are well constructed. If
we...at that point we were told that we had good quality streets and now he's telling us we have poor quality
streets. To tear them all out and start over. What we're saying is that we believe that a resurfacing job should
be at least explored and then considered seriously and then go from there. Thank you very much.
David Mitchell: As a comment to that. We did do soil borings throughout the entire area. Very few soil
borings, and I do not have that repot with me tonight but very few soil borings showed any Class V. I guess
I'm not saying that none was put down at the time but it has degraded into the soil below and there really is no
Class V available. And also to reiterate what Charles has said... resurfacing project within these areas is that it
would be very poor use of city dollars to do any type of project. That's my opinion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
60
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Dick Cottrell: Mr. Mayor. Members of the Council. I want to thank you for taking the extra time tonight to ,
hear us out rather than closing your meeting off at the appointed time. My name is Dick Cottrell and I'm at
8044 Cheyenne Avenue. And I am interested in the option of being able to stage this in developments to some
extent. For one thing it gives us the opportunity to stage the removal and the replacement of the trees. As I've
spent, I jog so I go around that area quite a little bit and I look at all those trees that are scheduled to come out
of there. It's going to make that area look radically different if all of those trees are removed at one time. I
recognize the necessity of doing this and doing it properly but if there is a way to stage it without increasing the ,
cost to the city and the residents ... and still get a quality job, I would like to see that considered Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? ,
Tom Kotsonas: Again I want to thank you also for staying so late and listening to us. I'm Tom Kotsonas and I
live at 8001 Cheyenne and I have some points to question on. On my personal, on my property I stand to lose
in this project 4 deciduous trees plus 3 to 5 spruce trees and arborvitae trees and I know all the arborvitaes are ,
called scrub even though mine are about 15 feet high and my spruce trees are all over 12 feet and they've been
called scrub because they're Colorado Spruce ... and so I'm losing, it looks like, something like 8 trees on my
property and since my property buffers the rest of the neighborhood from, or part of it anyway, from Highway 5,
there's a purpose that I put those trees in and that was to protect myself as much as I could from the noise and
the pollution that Highway 5 brings. I continually pick up garbage and I brought this to the City before. I have
picked up this spring litter bags, garbage bags, two full ones of stuff that comes onto my property and that's '
with the trees and the brush that I have there now. Now if I lose that, I'm going to wind up picking up even
more and it doesn't affect the other neighborhood and I know Mr. Fiskness brought you some letters but he was
evidentally very selective on the people that he asked to sign the letters in the neighborhood. Also, if I'm going
to be forced to lose those trees, if I, if you put in 2 to 2 1/2 inch trees. They take 15 years to grow. I'm 55
years old. I'm going to wait until I'm 70 to see a shade tree again on my property? Or my alternative is to
move and go someplace else. I think we should be looking at trees more than 2 to 2 1/2 inches in diameter and
if you look in last Saturday's paper and there was an article on value of houses and the value of shade trees.
And if I'm going to lose all my shade trees, I think I stand to lose a fair amount of value to my property at this
time and to wait 15 years. And the other thing is, if you're contemplating leaving out area number 2 or Chan
Estates #2 from this issue that we're talking, I would say then that that survey that was taken is really, has no '
value any longer because the numbers that were quoted are based on the total. So we would like to really
propose to look at for instance the 26 foot wide streets versus the 28 feet streets. Thank you very much.
Councilman Wing: Charles, I think you should look at this project, depending on what gets approved here, that
those particular houses on all the issues that have come up on that Highway 5 development. Those trees have
been a real significant barrier in that issue. And that if they wind up being taken out or damaged, I think that
should be given special attention to retain that barrier berm. Whether we put in some significant pines or some
type of barrier tree there because I would agree. That, we've tried to protect that and enhance that with all the
development to the north and I think if we wind up damaging, that should be put back in whatever way possible.
Just point that out as a special attention item.
David Mitchell: I guess for my clarification, that's the area between Erie Avenue as it extends to the west and
Lake Drive Extension?
Councilman Wing: Well actually it would be going to the east. Other direction.
David Mitchell: Yeah, the east side.
61
r_
I
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' Councilman Wing: From Dakota to the east of Cheyenne. What abuts the McDonalds and Lake Drive.
David Mitchell: That whole little triangle area between—and over to the park.
' Charles Folch: We can also meet with Mr. Kotsonas. Depending on the size of some of these evergreens, they
may still be able to get to relocated farther back out of the construction zone and maybe that's an option we can
take a look at too.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay. Is there anyone else?
' Mr. Wassink: I'm Mr. Wassink. I live at 8004 Dakota Avenue. How far are these trees going to be placed on
the property if they're taken out? Are they going to be next to the curb? 4 to 6, 8 feet from the curb? Where
are they going to be placed?
Charles Folch: Generally they'll be in a zone of minimum of 8 feet behind the curb. And so that 8 to 10 foot
range. Again, we propose to do a 2 to 1. We're basically budgeting this project for the 2 to 1 replacement but
when it gets right down to it, as Mrs. Dvorak pointed out, depending on where existing trees are in the yard,
farther back and such, you may not always be able to get 2 more or 3 more trees in a front boulevard. But
generally in that range of 8, middle of 8, possibly 10 feet behind the curb.
Mr. Wassink: Okay. Now the person that's going to put these trees in, I imagine the city's going to do that.
Will the property owner have any say where that tree is going to be set ?...
Charles Folch: We have, as we have in other projects, we will meet with the homeowner and try to get a
general location which we'll stake as to where that homeowner prefers that tree to be laterally along the
boulevard but we certainly don't want to encroach any closer than that 8 foot zone to the curb. In the future
point in time some Councils 25 -30 years from now might have to deal with the same situation in tree loss.
' Mr. Wassink: Okay, then one more question. What is the depth of your, when you put down tar? Now I don't
expect to see probably an inch and a half tar and say well this is it. I'd like to see something that's going to be
' a little heavier and it won't be kicking out of the...
Charles Folch: Basically that road section out there, which would follow the city's residential standard, will be
on top of the 2 foot granting of their subbase would be 12 inches of Class V rock. A 2 1/2 inch blacktop base
and another inch and a half of blacktop wear on top. So you're going to have a total of 3 1/2 inches of blacktop
on top of 12 inches of rock.
Mr. Wassink: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
George Thomas: Yeah, I'm in the 1st Addition Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. I'm in the 1st Addition. My
address is 8029 Cheyenne Avenue. My opinion is that residents on the 1st Addition should have their choice of
what tree ... The gentleman that was just up here and asked for evergreen trees. Is there any way that you people
' could retransplant those trees back off the right -of- way? And second, I want a barrier curb. It's easier for the
street department to plow snow back there and I don't get my grass all tore up from the plow. Thank you.
7
L
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
,
Allison Blackowiak: Hi. Mayor and Council members. I'm Allison Blackowiak. I live on 8116 Erie Circle,
which is in the 2nd Addition and I guess I'm not too much affected I think by what's going to be happening
tonight, if I read you all correctly. But I still would like to make some comments about the trees. First of all I
like the idea of the staged tree removal. One problem I had was that I felt any contractor that would come in
would just rip all the trees out indiscriminantly without looking at the merits of each tree. And I think what we
need to do is take a look at a tree and figure out if indeed there's a chance to save it, if it's dead or dying, like
'
many of them are, take them out. But if there's a chance to save them, I think we should give the trees that
chance because it takes many, many years to grow these trees and I don't think that going in and ripping them
all out is a solution. And I've heard comments tonight earlier about the streetscape and how you want to keep
'
stuff, West 78th Street looking a certain way and we have a neighborhood. Chanhassen Estates that already
looks a certain way. It's an established neighborhood. We've got nice trees on each side of the street and just
kind of a very cozy feeling when you go into that neighborhood. But to rip all the trees out indiscriminantly and
replace them with 2 1/2 inch diameter trees would totally destroy that streetscape that we've already got there.
So I think what we need to do is take a look at the trees individually and see what we can do to save what trees
we can, given that some will be taken out and let's do the staged tree removal if possible and let's let the
neighbors have a little bit more say. I think one of the main problems I had with this entire process was, when I
heard we were getting a new street I was thrilled. Even though I live in the 2nd Addition, I'm down on Erie
Circle and we get chunks of blacktop floating down to our street so I mean I know that there's a problem and
I'd like to see that taken care of. But I just, I was not feeling well informed about what was going to be
happening. The letters I got we kept talking about street construction and I thought, great. They didn't say
anything about trees. They didn't say anything about watermains. They didn't say anything about sewer. And I
felt that those were issues that should have been brought to the attention of the residents. It's not just a street
reconstruction project. There are other elements to this project and I felt that that would have been nice to have
come out earlier in the process because had I been aware of this earlier, I would definitely have been at all the
meetings and I talked to Dave Mitchell the other day on the phone and I told him I thought the survey and the
information packet he sent out was great. I mean I felt at least like I had a feeling of what was going to be
happening and things that maybe in the future, if you could send out a little more information and try to identify
the issues so people might find helpful or might be of concern to them, that things might go a little bit more
smoothly than this entire project has started off going. Thank you.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles.
Charles Folch: I should point out that in terms of the scope, and I don't know if this is the word, concerning the
utility repairs and storm drainage and street drainage, all that was brought out at the feasibility hearing and the
neighborhood meeting that we had in September prior to that feasibility hearing. I should also point out that that
first neighborhood meeting, before the feasibility last September, we only had 12 people show up. Similar
situation occurred for the second neighborhood meeting we had. It was only until the third neighborhood
meeting when we finally got a full crowd of people that were even interested in hearing about the project so it
can be very tough to get information and get people interested in coming to these neighborhood meetings to find
out what's happening on the projects and that's why we do have these neighborhood meetings so people can
come and find out what's going on.
Mayor Chmiel: And I understand that because I've gone through the same process except our assessment came
'
to about $10,000.00 per residence rather than 4 so I understand the feel.
63
I
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' Councilman Wing: Have you got that paid off yet?
Mayor Chmiel: Just last year. Finally. It was put on for a 15 year assessment. Anyone else?
Gene Gagner: Good evening gentlemen. Thanks for spending the long evening with us. My name is Gene
Gagner and I live at 8025 Dakota Avenue. And I hope that this project is approved tonight because of any other
further delays it won't get done this year. Except for the final 2 inches that we put on next year so I hope the
' project goes through and I'd like to see both 1st and the 2nd Additions done. The reason I'd like the 2nd
Addition done now is because in a couple, 2 or 3 years, maybe 4 years, they're going to be looking at doing it
the right way. As it were, the 1st Addition wants it done now and they're going to be driving their heavy
' equipment over our new roads. I don't want my new roads that I spent $4,000.00 on and they city spent even
more on than I have, to have to go back over and reconstruct them because the roads were weaken because of
heavy equipment. That they will have to drive over to get to the 2nd Addition to do the road construction.
' Thank you for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
' Rhonda Faidley: Gentlemen. My name's Rhonda Faidley and I live at 8117 Erie Circle. 2nd Addition. I'm
curious, there's been talk about maybe not doing the 2nd Addition but then there's also talk about the storm
sewer. Different areas that need to be taken care of. Part of that was coming down the 2nd Addition. If the
' 2nd Addition is not done, what happens with the storm sewers? Is that also not done?
David Mitchell: Yeah, the project can be broken into two phases and if I'm reading the Council correctly, they
only order the I st Addition and there would be no storm sewer work done in the 2nd Addition. The 2nd
' Addition would remain as is until a future project is initiated.
Rhonda Faidley: Future project would be initiated and maybe looked at later on down the road, depending on.
' Mayor Chmiel: 5 years. 6 years. Whatever. Anyone else?
' Amy Dvorak: Amy Dvorak again. Can I ask one more question? On the stage removal of trees. That's the
first that we heard ... come through and take out 60 or 70. Who will be responsible for removing the other trees?
If it's left up to the contractor, we all know that they will come down. We've been looking at building a
different home in Chanhassen and if it's a wooded lot you can only take out these 3 trees. There's very limited
and restrictive ordinances about how many trees can be removed from an existing lot. And so I understand that
the city values trees but I feel no assurance whatsoever from what's been said this evening that a sincere effort
will be made to save trees by stating it in a contract with the contractor and penalizing them if they're not kept
' and they could be.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles?
Charles Folch: The construction will be monitored on a daily basis with the inspector assigned through our
project consultant engineer. We have, I mean at this point in time a number based on their location on the plans
of which trees definitely are going to be severely impacted. Which ones are marginal. The ones that are
marginal, I don't believe you could put a penalty on a contractor necessarily. I mean unless it's a tree that's far
enough away where it certainly was never intended to affected by the project, then I think we can impose a
penalty but the call as to damage of the tree, that certainly would come from probably the inspector maybe even
64
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
with Laurie's taking a look at some of the marginal cases as to how much damage has been done to the root '
system of the tree.
Amy Dvorak: Could you qualify how many trees would come out in the first stage and how many are marginal
and how many are left? On a 26 foot street and a 28 foot street and a 31 foot street, which is what we've asked
for since the very beginning and we've never gotten an answer on and I'd really appreciate it.
Charles Folch: There was a colored drawing.
David Mitchell: I think if we.
'
Amy Dvorak: What are the totals?
David Mitchell: I'm estimating here, and we've been through this 4 or 5 different times so I'm pulling numbers
'
that I'm not real sure on but the estimated tree removal at a 31 foot street, and I'm quoting the entire project
area now. 1st and 2nd Additions. With the 31 foot street, our worst case scenario was 120 trees removed.
Under a 28 foot scenario we were looking at in the neighborhood of 80 to 100 trees being removed. And in the
26 foot scenario, in the neighborhood of 62 to 80 trees being removed.
Councilman Wing: On Minnewashta Parkway we moved the entire road to save a couple really run down, beat
out, chewed up maple trees. We don't take trees down for the fun of it. The city's as tight as any city I'm
,
aware of on trees and so it will be minimized. I know that. There's no question. But you're going to lose
some and it's a nebulous number. I don't think it's reasonable to even try and tie it down right now. I can only
tell you our ordinances don't allow for the removal so I'm pretty confident that you're going to see the minimum
number taken. But they're going to go.
Amy Dvorak: I'm concerned because originally it was talking about taking them all out and I still think that
that's the thought process. I hope not.
'
Councilman Wing: I hope not.
'
Mayor Chmiel: I do too.
Amy Dvorak: But when they're down it's too late.
'
David Mitchell: I'd like to add to what Charles had said too. As you talk with contractors too doing this type
of work, they're becoming very aware of the sensitivity of these issues and they are being more cautious as they
approach these types of projects.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that contractor should be informed prior to construction and the concerns the city has.
Joe Betz: Mayor and Council, I wasn't going to say anything for the sake of time but hearing some other things
'
being said, I just want to make a few quick comments. My name is Joe Betz, 8107 Dakota Lane, 2nd Addition.
I've attended all the meetings. Been involved and I'm probably the only resident who's lived on both sides of
the street over the time that I've lived here since 1974. I want to say in terms of my relationship with people
who have been involved with the staff, and other professionals involved, what's gone on in my experience with
city businesses before, I feel that all the people involved have tried to do a sincerely as good a job as they can in
65
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' presenting the materials and it does require an obligation on the part of citizens to attend the meetings and pick
up the information. I'd like to say that in a sense this is somewhat comparable to a patient relationship with a
surgeon. If you were a cancer patient. You're about to do something to us that's very traumatic, extensive and
' it hurts some people very much and we hope that the outcome of all this is going to be better than the situation
that we have. We have some things that have to be fixed. They need attention ... 12 year project to get to this
point. Generally speaking, without getting into specifics, I think there are 3 priority ways to get this. One is
first of all health and safety and I see that the three priorities in that are basically resident's children,
resident's ... and then the construction workers themselves. It seems that the decisions you have to make keep
within those priorities. Secondly, in terms of the infrastructure overall needs to be addressed from a long term
perspective as well as from a cost effective approach. The whole community but that's an issue that, whether
' heavy equipment should be brought in now or later, whatever. The lst or 2nd Addition, I think you need to look
at in the broad sense. And then lastly in terms of...generally speaking. As people have brought up. Some
people have different plantings... the city could work with some people, such as has been suggested, and maybe
' bring in the right equipment to help them move plants. To also get the community together and the one nice
thing about this particular situation, it has brought the community together better than anything in the past.
Unfortunately it has had some trauma involved with the road but I would hope some of you will get together and
help your neighbors to maybe move some trees and have us all work together and get this thing going but I think
you need to make a decision tonight. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? If not, we'll come back to Council.
t Councilman Mason: Can we use the applause o'meter to see whether we should do 2nd Addition or not?
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think Council has indicated some of their concerns and true, if equipment is brought in
on a low boy trailer, and correct me if I'm wrong Charles, it can eliminate some of those given problems
because it does have additional wheels and it takes compression onto that entirety of the road. The only thing
I'd have is concerns about sizes of vehicles that they would have for removal of soils and whatever they're
going to do. And I don't know what kind of equipment they even have so that's another thing. But I still sort
of stand by the decision that I had in regard to that 2nd Addition. I guess being that it's not quite as old and it
doesn't have as many years in wear on it and to put it over and to do some just patch work on those roads. I
can't see an overlay because I think it's just a waste of dollars. To either go that particular way or to do it
completely and right now I'm still leaning to doing the 1st Addition. Getting that completed and getting the
show on the road and leaving the 2nd Addition as is.
' Councilman Wing: Now did you sneak in a motion there?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd so move that.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that. And to that, as a friendly amendment, that it be a 28 foot road, barrier
curb, and careful staging of trees.
Mayor Chmiel: Correct.
Councilman Mason: Could I add to that? That I think this issue of bigger trees or 1 tree as opposed to 2 trees.
If the homeowner should choose, they say they'd rather because of landscaping or what not, that they should
have the option of having one larger tree?
••
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
type of.
,
Councilman Senn: Well the thing is, couldn't we put together some
Mayor Chmiel: The concern I have number one Michael is, once you go from 2 1/2 to a 3 inch to a larger
based tree, your costs just escalate really high.
'
Charles Folch: And that's correct. And a clear example of that is the tree project that we bid out this year for
Audubon Road and Kerber Boulevard. Strategically we did, throughout the project at 2 1/2 inch caliper tree
because when you actually go out to the nursery and pick out the trees, often times they come in at 3 inches but
you're paying at 2 1/2 versus if you spec out 3, you're going to pay the 3 price and it's typically 50% to 70%
higher than a 2 1/2. But that's kind of the way the game is played
,
Councilman Mason: Well but okay. But then if you're talking one 3 1/2 inch tree as opposed to two 2 1/2 inch
trees, I mean what's the cost then? Give or take.
'
Charles Folch: Just an example from some of the nursery prices we received this year. A tree, a 2 1/2 inch
caliper tree that would normally sell for probably $225.00 to $250.00 at 3 inches specified diameter probably
runs another $80.00. $75.00 to $80.00 more per tree.
Councilman Mason: Well but, so then one 3 1/2 inch tree is cheaper than two 2 1/2 inch trees.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be true.
,
Councilman Mason: So what I'm saying is, if the neighbors.
'
Mayor Chmiel: One large one as opposed to two.
Councilman Mason: Would rather have one large one as opposed to the two.
'
Councilman Senn: And I heard somebody say if they had 4 and they'd rather have 1. 1 mean why don't we
have some kind of a scale or some type of an allowance set up so it allows them to do something like that?
Charles Folch: We'll see what we can work out.
Mayor Chmiel: It's not figured in on the road portion.
'
Councilman Mason: Yeah, this is a separate deal but I mean that certainly makes sense to me. I mean it sounds
like we'd even be saving some money on the deal.
'
Councilman Wing: We'll just simply instruct flexibility here.
Councilman Senn: I don't have a problem with them choosing a tree either, do you?
'
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that as an additional condition?
is here now.
Councilman Mason: Oh, Charles upset
Charles Folch: ...it can be tough to bid out in terms of, at this point knowing exactly which trees are coming out
'
67
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' and does this particular owner, if he loses that tree, does he want a 3 1/2 or 4 inch because everything is bid out
in the front end of the project and we're not going to know exactly how many trees.
Councilman Senn: But I think you're missing the point. Why don't you take the cost of a 2 1/2 inch tree and if
this lot's losing 2 and you've doubled it to 4, just give them an allowance. I mean if that allowance is x dollars,
that's it. I mean you can bid that out in the project up front and it's up to the homeowner how they want to use
'
it I mean let them pick their tree and let them pick the size of the tree within that allowance. If they go over
the allowance, and that's what they want...
Councilman Mason: They kick in some more money for a bigger tree.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? One of the, as I heard Dave though. When you said this 50 foot spacing, like the
two trees. I got the feeling that that's kind of an average. You know so it's not necessarily 4 trees on this
' particular owner. In fact if you've got a 100 foot lot, and most of them look like they're kind of on a lot line.
So the question then becomes whether or not, well the fast guy has 3 trees and the next guy he only has 2.
Well he's going to say he has 3 and the other guy only has 2.
I Mayor Chmiel: Work it out.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, split it down the middle, there you go. I mean I would certainly hope. I mean I'm
' hearing that the neighborhood, and it does certainly seem like the neighborhood has come together on this. I've
got to believe that the side by side homeowners can work it out and if not, we'll get the applause meter out or
something. I don't know. I mean I think we can work this out. We can be flexible.
' Councilman Wing: If you've got to get going on trees...
Councilman Senn: And let them choose their trees which was a point.
Councilman Mason: On the list. The approved list.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second.
Amy Dvorak: Can we get the sign?
Councilman Senn: Oh the sign.
Mayor Chmiel: The sign is something, I don't know who took the sign down. Whether it be the city or.
Councilman Wing: Well that's not part of this project.
Mayor Chmiel: And to me that's not part of the project. We had a sign taken down from our's as well and it
never got put back up. It's still sitting there. So consequently, I really don't think that that's part of the project.
We did that by an association and contributed dollars and got our own sign back again. But that I don't think is
part of the project. So with that, I'll call the question.
Resolution #9441: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve plans and specifications
for Chanhassen Estates street, drainage and utility Reconstruction Project #93.10 for Phase I only with a
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 '
28 foot wide street, barrier curb and careful consideration given to tree removal and replacement; and to '
authorize advertising for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 19.7 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND NUNNEWASHTA
PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Kenneth Durr Applicant
Rick Sathre Sathre - Berquist ,
Dave & Donna Hoelke 3621 Ironwood Road
Ann Zweig 3601 Ironwood Road
Tom & Sharon Wright 3611 Ironwood Road '
Bob Haibesen 3607 Ironwood Road
Kate Aanenson: The applicant Ken Durr is proposing to subdivide 19 acres into 27 single family lots.
Originally there were four underlying parcels of land and three homes located on the site. Currently there's still
'
one home located on the property. This plan has some modifications ... preliminary approval from the Planning
Commission. You do have a revised plat since the Planning Commission. Also Lot 7 was redesigned to meet
the regulations with the 90 foot frontage and 30 foot setback. And then also we took out the variance ... for Lot
8. Mr. Dun proposes to use this plat as part of the 1995 Street of Dreams. As indicated, this lot is adjacent to
'
Highway 7 and Lake Minnewashta so all the lots on Lake Minnewashta have to meet the 20,000 square foot for
the DNR shoreland regulations and have a minimum setback of 75 feet. The average lot size for the subdivision
is in excess of 24,000 with the smallest lot being 16,500... standard lot size in the RSF zone is 15,000. On Outlot
,
A, which is next to the Schmid's Acres reservation over here on Minnewashta Parkway. This is Outlot A. The
applicant may in the future propose a beachlot. That would require a separate conditional use. That's not part
of the application at this time. Just to make you aware. It does meet standards of the 200 feet of shoreline plus
the square footage requirements. The applicant is requesting two variances for Lots 11 and 16. Lot 11 is this
'
lot right here and 16 is up here. This lot is a double frontage lot. It has access from the cul-de -sac, which
would be our preference. This lot ... pushing it further back. All it does is keep away from the rear yard and it
drops off ...And Lot 16, this is the large pond. In pushing that back, it doesn't meet the requirements on that lot.
'
Again what you're doing is taking away their rear yard. So the staff did go through the variance requirements
and is recommending approval on those two lots. As far as storm water issues, this pond is maybe redesigned
and maybe even combined with the pond over in this area here. That will have to go through the evaluation of
'
the storm water calculation before final plat. The other pond is proposed for Outlot A. Access to this site is
from a long cul -de -sac. Normally we don't like to see cul-de -sacs in excess of 600 feet. This one is well in
excess of 1,000 feet. What this proposed site is trying to accomplish is to pick up, there is 4 homes that exist
off of Ironwood Lane. This is Ironwood Drive right here. There are 4 homes that have access directly off of
Highway 7 ... wish to eliminate those access and it is a safety concern. And what Mr. Durr would propose with
this lot is to provide an outlot for a drive. This would be just a drive, which the ordinance does allow 4 homes
off of, to provide access to these homes through the cul -de -sac. Again, giving them direct access onto
Minnewashta Parkway as opposed to direct access onto Highway 7, which we feel meets a lot of safety
concerns. Fire Marshal would still like to see the possibility of leaving this as a secondary access. Just put hard
69
u
�II
�1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
surface. Obviously in the winter it probably would be maintained but that's something we need to take a look
at. There is a tree survey was prepared for this site. The plat map's been designed to provide for maximum tree
preservation. A majority of the trees along the Lakeshore, obviously they're saved behind the lots. Trees which
would be significant will be taken off, or on this ridge line on Lot 2. As far as streetscape on Minnewashta
Parkway, the ordinance requires streetscape along Highway 7, which is proposed in this planted berm but there
was not streetscape proposed. There is existing trees along Minnewashta Parkway and a berm may not work in
trying to preserve the integrity of existing trees but staff feels like additional trees can be planted in that area.
The plan ... maximum of 35 to 38 trees and just with the streetscape plan and the replacement of 1 tree per lot an
additional 50 trees will be replaced. Staff has asked for additional trees. When this went to the Planning
Commission, the Planning Commission was concerned with the landscaping plan and asked that it come back to
review the plan specifically. They were still concerned at that point that the landscaping plan was not prepared
by a professional landscape person. What we are particularly the Planning Commission is that normally we
don't look at final landscape plans until it's the very final plat. But they did request that before final plat.-they
have an opportunity to review that landscape plan. I do have a letter in your packet that was given by Mr.
Zweig who is one of the neighbors on Ironwood that was concerned about the tree removal and felt that
additional trees should be placed on the site to accommodate for the removal. And the other issue that's a
concern of the neighbors, especially the neighbors right here—are concerned about the view on Lot 8. As we
indicated, the setback from the shoreland regulations is 75 feet. This plat proposes... their home, Mr. Durr has a
map showing where their home is located. Currently they have a 180 degree view across. Their home is set
approximately 5 feet from the property line so right now any home located in this area, and they're set back
about 200 feet, would block their view. Staff has indicated... beyond the 75 foot setback and what we've done is
asked Mr. Durr to work with the neighbors to try to resolve the best way to accomplish maximizing their views
and retain the integrity of the value of the lot. And I'm certain they want to discuss that with you. I mentioned
the existing ponds. There is a storm water issue. There is one right now that runs through the back of this lot
and cuts down through this neighborhood. The city's been in there fixing some problems. What we're hoping
with this pond, as I've indicated, these may be tied together, is try to resolve a ... work with the developer to try
to resolve some storm water issues. As far as compliance.. Lot 8. In looking at that lot, frontage, where you
meet 100 feet is set here. As this pad is shown here, it meets setback requirements. In meeting with the
neighbors, I think they're going to come and ask for a different proposal on that lot that we can discuss. Park
and Recreation, the Park and Recreation has asked for park and trail fees in lieu of park dedication with this plat.
As indicated, in the Planning Commission's review, this did comply and again they do want to see the, Planning
Commission wants to see the final landscape plan before the final plat approval. So the staff recommends
approval of the subdivision with the 31 conditions in the report. Planning Commission added 27 thru 31
conditions...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Is the developer here this evening?
Rick Sathre: Your Honor, members of Council. My name is Rick Sathre. I'm the planner and engineer for Mr.
Durr. Mr. Kenneth Durr is here tonight as well as a consultant that he uses frequently, Steve Keifer from Davies
Tree Company. They'll each be available for questions or whatever you wish. I have five things I'd like to
discuss with the Council. I think the staff has done a terrific job in I think helping you understand the proposal
so I'll deal with those 5 things and try to keep it brief in light of the late hour. I'll pass three pictures around.
First issue or fast comment briefly is, there's been a discussion with the neighbors and the Planning Commission
about tree removal and whether it was clear cutting and what Mr. Durr has done a couple of years ago is, what
his intent was to clean up dead fallen material. Trees that were dying or dead and some of the scrub trees that
were under the specimen trees and he did render or had a contractor go in and take out trees that he thought
70
i
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
were substandard and small and the saplings. And that's been an issue. That he did that. Again, when we did
our tree survey we tried to identify those grade of trees that are on the site and we did the tree survey so that we
could design the subdivision to preserve the best of the trees with the idea that this site is heavily impacted by
Highway 7 and we have to do a good job of screening the view of the traffic that's on Minnewashta Parkway
and Highway 7. To that end we've committed to the Planning Commission and just to the project we've
committed to significant tree plantings. Ken knows he has to do a good job if he's going to market these homes
in the upper bracket, which he intends to. So in his earlier removal of trees he took out a lot of the dead and
dying trees. The pictures that I sent around show some more that are, there are any number of spruce that are
out there... There's many other trees on the site which are ... and smaller trees that he intends to spade move.
We'll move as many trees as we can that are in the way. Going on to the number two item I wanted to talk
about. That's Minnewashta Parkway assessments. The staff report identifies that the city should collect
assessments for Minnewashta Parkway for all 27 lots. The site was previously assessed for 8 units with the
original assessment roll. We'd like your consideration and not assessing the rest of these sites. All of the land
that directly fronted on Minnewashta Parkway was assessed for the road. We're going to some trouble to direct
all the traffic to Minnewashta Parkway, even though there is two present accesses out to Highway 7. The
driveways from the old homes. We're moving the traffic to Minnewashta Parkway for health, safety and welfare
reasons. We think it's a safer place than Highway 7 to put the traffic. Now to penalize potentially the project
with the additional assessments would seem to contradict the goal of promoting safety. So we're trying to do
our part to be safe and we'd like not to be penalized for doing that. So we would prefer that only the 8
assessments be collected, not 27. Third item, staff has and the Planning Commission recommended additional
right -of -way dedication for Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway slightly encroaches into the property.
Staff is asking that 33 feet of right -of -way be dedicated from the center of the road. If you need the land, you
should take it. The problem from our standpoint, and I want you to know that we have to dedicate about 10
extra feet of right -of -way to accommodate the staffs wishes. What that realistically does is it takes away 10 feet
of rear yards from the lots that abut the northwest corner of the site. And so that, it will lessen the berm height
by a couple feet. Maybe it's not the end of the world. It probably isn't. What we would ask you to do, if you
take that land as, to prevent, to agree to prohibit any motorized vehicles from using the boulevard in that area.
To keep the snowmobilers or the three wheelers or whatever that might use that boulevard area out of there. We
hope that you would do that. Fourth item we wish to address is park fees. There's three existing tax parcels
there. There's been three houses on the property for a long time. Two are removed and another one's going to
be taken down. Staff is asking for 27 new park and trail fees to be collected. We'd ask that you credit us for
the three, for the three existing tax parcels. And lastly, the issue of the Hoelke's. I've got a graph, a couple
graphics and they're free to use them as well. I hope you can still hear if I talk from here. This is the eastern
line of the Dun property and this is Hoelke's house and Wright's house and Haibesen's and Zweig's. It's half
on and half off the page. So you can see they're set quite a ways back from the lake and they're staggered so
they're getting closer to the lake as you go west. Zeroing in more, the ordinance would allow the structures to
be 75 feet from the shoreline and you can see how much closer that is than your home. After a lot of back and
forth, Ken Dun has committed to Hoelke's that he would hold this house back 105 feet at least from the
lakeshore and at least 25 feet from the common property boundary. But we need an accommodation from the
city to be able to accomplish that. That is we need to be able to put the house 10 feet from this lot line and I
think that might be a problem now because Kate's considering this a front lot line? So we'd have a 20 foot
variance I guess, wouldn't we? Or 25.
Kate Aanenson: 20.
Rick Sathre: 20 foot variance so if this has to be 30 then this house is 20 feet farther south if it's that same
home. I guess this would require a variance that we haven't applied for and I guess we could work that out at
71
P
t
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
the final plat stage if that worked for the Council. There'd have to be a hearing I suppose. But if this can work,
then we can go partly at least in solving the Hoelke's objections. The other way that we could solve the
problem, we understand they'd like to have a 45 degree sight angle across this sight, not 32 degrees which is
' what we're showing here. The only way we could accommodate that, practically speaking, is to eliminate the
access. The outlot. The driveway access that would tie this subdivision to the Ironwood neighborhood. If I
could use the sight plan there. In order to pull that house. If we were to pull this house farther north, we need
to shift these other lots farther north too and the only way to really free up the space is to take this driveway
oudot back out of there. But that would mean that their access would continue out to Highway 7 as it does now
and so that I don't know which is the lesser of evils but. But we've been trying to get their access through this
plat with a common goal of improving the safety. That's where we're at and that's my ... five issues and I'd be
' happy to answer questions. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wanting to address this at this time? I think that we all
' have had an opportunity to review the letter and know some of the points. Maybe if you'd just briefly bring us
up to date as to your thinking right now with this 105 feet. If we were able to give that a variance.
Dave Hoelke: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. I'm Dave Hoelke and this is my wife Donna
Hoelke. We live at 3621 Ironwood, which is a picture ... of the property there. As I walk around here I see all
the pictures of the lakes. I trust that we all take, I know that we're all very proud of the lakes and trying to
maintain the beauty and integrity ... and trust that we'll make a decision here that's along reasonable lines. For
' the record I sent a package to you on Friday. To each of you and I spoke to you over the weekend. Asking you
if you had any questions and I want to say that I'm very much in support of the development. And Mr. Durr I
think he'll put together and do a terrific job of putting a high quality buildings in and a high quality
development. Our particular issue is with the placement of the house on Lot 8. In all due respect I, if Mr. Durr
or somebody else lives on the property, I don't really want to see them shaving in the morning when I look out
to the lake. I think it's reasonable for us to want to protect the aesthetic quality and the—value that we paid
dearly for to move there in the first place. What we've got, what I've seen is really two points of, that work in
our favor. What we don't have is an ordinance that works in our favor because they are meeting the 75 degree
setback. But from a logical standpoint, there's a beautiful ridge, just at the north two lot lines of Lot 8. Directly
west of our property. It's the ridge that would naturally, that we would assume people would build into when
we moved into the property. It's elevated 6 or 8 feet above the lake. In order to build a house forward of that
there'd have to be considerable filling and changing of the elevations. And the other logical point of view is that
other cities around the community have set an ordinance that says that you can't build in front of your neighbors
and cover up lakefront views. Chanhassen is one of the few cities that doesn't have an ordinance like that and
regardless of how we come out here today, I would ask that you take a look at that for future consideration. For
future developments because this is going to happen more and more as other houses are torn down. As people
try to get closer to the lakes. All of the things that happen over time. The other point is, a precedence that was
set, our neighbors two houses to the east of us. When they subdivided the lot in 1977 they were told by the City
Council and the Attorney that they could not build or they had to build in line with the two houses on either
side, which is the same as what Excelsior and any other communities that you are in require. And so that
' precedence is the type of thing that I'm looking for so it seems that there's common sense and there's
precedence but what we don't have is an ordinance. And so I'm asking for help at this point in trying to allow,
try to get something that we can work with. I'm asking for 45 degrees of clear view from our property. Mr.
Durr has come back with a 32 degree assurance and we'd like to see what we can do to maintain that 45
' degrees. We feel like we're compromising in asking for 45 degrees. I'm not sure what the alternatives would
be. Whether they'd be to move the house further west by changing the lots to the west or by moving it further
to the north and changing Lots 9, 10 and 11 or changing the Outlot B to coming in from the south of 11 instead
72
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
of the north of 11. There are a number of different things that might work. I'm not a planner so I don't know
exactly what will work. But I guess what I would ask is if that ordinance were there, if it had been there when
we started the property, it would be, it would still be a developable property and worthwhile project and so I
would ask you to consider that next. It's not something that is ... in the project and feasible. That's all I have,
thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Bob Haibmn: Mayor, Council members. My name is Bob Haibesen. I live at 3607 Ironwood Road. I think
I'm the last person to build out there and that was 16 years ago. At the time I built there was a restriction that
said that I had to build basically at the same distance from the lake as the other homes on both sides of me. I
felt it was a reasonable request at the time and...I guess I would ask that you put yourself in Mr. Hoelke's
position. He's lived there for some time and I think that the view of the lake is very critical to the value of his
property. Secondly ... to Mr. Durr, I'd like to personally say thank you very much for cleaning up that piece of
property that you have. We've been looking at 16 years of over growth and it's been a real eyesore and he's
cleaned it up and it's improved it considerably. Thank you.
Tom Wright: My name is Tom Wright and I'm at 3611 Ironwood Road. My wife Sharon is here with me this
evening. I guess I would make just a couple of comments, so we don't get redundant with our comments here
this evening. We have generally been very strong supporters of the project as it's been outlined to us. Mr. Durr
has done I think a good job of bringing us in the loop. I think we're all convinced that what he's proposing here
is basically better than what we've got and certainly a lot better than what could be proposed there. I think the
issue for us, for a lot of us who have been going out to Highway 7. We've been a neighborhood down there.
We're happy with what we've got. With what we have. We really hadn't considered any other egress out of
our property other than Ironwood Road going up to Highway 7. As this was proposed, and the work that he was
doing, the quality of development, we thought that that would be to our benefit. To be able to cut into that cul-
de -sac and go on out. So I think generally all of us have been supportive of this project. As it's evolved, I
think that Dave and Donna have gone from saying gee, I didn't like this. As they thought about it more, I think
they realistically, they spent more time and they thought about the placement of this house, it's become more and
more objectionable to them. And I have to say that we support that as well. If it's your house and if you're
there where they are, having a house built in front of you. Only one time in my experience out at Lake
Minnewashta has that happened and that was down at a house further down on the Shore Drive and they built a
big addition swimming pool out the front and I mean it was just, how it ever got done I don't know but I think
that being a good neighbor along this line says yeah, we are concerned about where the houses go and I know
that that's going to work some hardship on him, the way they've got that development drawn but I think in
fairness, that that's a reasonable position. So thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else?
Ann Zweig: My name is Ann Zweig and I live at 3601 Ironwood Road and I'm in agreement with the rest of
my neighbors. My husband and I basically agree with the development. We have ... going down to Outlot B.
But we also strongly urge that the city put restrictions on the Durr property so that the house proposed for Lot 8
stay in alignment with the rest of the neighborhood. We feel it really is important that Hoelke's get that relief
that they request. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Richard. Do you have any questions?
73
jl
1
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Wing: Any comments at this time? Kate, the 33 foot easement. Minnewashta Parkway right now,
and I don't know why this happened and I don't know why we didn't correct it before. Minnewashta Parkway
comes up and then we had that gentleman who that danced that little jig for us. Minnewashta Parkway comes
' in and makes a very abrupt turn just before it hits Highway 7. And it's almost dysfunctional if you will. I mean
it's a wide road. Something, you're trying to T it off or make a 90 into Highway 7. It seems to me that road or
when MnDot comes through with a stop light, that road's going to have to swing to the east and be, that curve
' coming up to TH 7 is going to have to be graded into a little more of a gentle approach to Highway 7. So I
guess I see that 33 feet as really critical because I think that road's got to rebuilt. That 300 feet as it comes up
to Highway 7 is really abrupt and extreme and I don't know how it happened. I remember Bill Engelhardt
trying to justify his position but it didn't make sense then and it makes less sense now and we didn't have the
' money to buy it. On the other hand you can't T a road up and a road that doesn't exist. So what are we going
to do with that, that 33 feet I think we need and I respect his right to protect it until such time as we use it. I
think they have a legitimate concern that that's going to be abused with snowmobiles and that's a real issue that
I think he has a right to have an answer to. But what are we going to do with that road Charles?
Charles Folch: You're absolutely correct. We do need the 33 feet. The reason that the road exists or the
connection to TH 7 exists as it does today is when the plans were actually drawn up 2 years ago for that project.
' At that time MnDot's schedule was to install the traffic signal at Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway in 1994
and the one down at Highway 5 in '95. All of those schedules, as we keep hearing the story on every highway
project, have all been pushed back. So basically that was designed because it was ... a one to two year interim
' situation until MnDot would come back through and realign it with the intersection. Now it looks like it's going
to end up having a useful life with a little bit longer than what we had hoped but it will be remedied and we
certainly do need the additional right -of -way.
' Councilman Wing: Alright, On the assessments, item 3. I think what did it say there? Three that were on the
tax rolls?
' Charles Folch: It was actually 8. We made the, as Mr. Sathre pointed out, the property currently has two access
points out onto Highway 7. And as we have done with similar properties like that, we've tried to basically
estimate at that point in time, what's the fair and reasonable amount of lots that would probably make use of
' Minnewashta Parkway. And that accesses to TH 7 are giving up and their sole access is to the parkway, we
don't see it as a penalty to the developer. We see it as the lots paying their fair share for use and benefit of the
operation. We don't see it as a penalty and we don't intend it as a penalty.
' Councilman Wing: So you stick with the 20?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
' Councilman Wing: Alright. On the Hoelke issue, it seems like maybe we have actually no recourse here and
I'll wait for final comment of the other members. It seems to me that this is platted out with that is an issue. On
the other hand, if we delete Lot 9, 10 or 11, or we cut those lots down in size, Lot 8 then could in fact be
adjusted to go north a few feet. I mean everything sort of take it or leave it and I guess as it was drawn out,
there wasn't much leeway. Either it's going to be your way or not at all and we have to give a 20 foot variance
to do this and do that. It seems like this plat maybe has one too many lots in it then if that's the case. Outlot B.
' I'd be real hesitant to approve this without giving that Ironwood access off. I think that's a hazard and I think
MnDot would support that. I think it's the proper way to go but we can hit that later. On the Outlot B access.
Mr. Sathre, they've had the aerial truck out driving cul -de -sacs. Well actually the engines this week with
74
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Charles. And with that island in there, the trucks come in and they back out. There's absolutely no
maneuvering possible whatsoever. And I don't think that even the engines could make the cut with that island in
there so either, on that one cul -de -sac. The island needs to be deleted or there needs to be a major curb cut of a
sizeable portion cut out to allow the equipment to get around that corner. And fire access to those four lots is a
major issue because they're going to be pretty isolated and access is going to be really critical. So I don't know
what your final outcome is there but you have to look at the wide breadth this aerial truck takes and I think the
aerial truck ought to be able to get in there and I'm going to just trust you that with the Fire Marshal, that's
going to be worked out. But as I'm looking at it, what we have Pere, there's no way the island could be in there
and I don't know, have you corrected that?
Rick Sathre: We took, excuse me for having to speak ... I was hoping not to. We took the fire department's
turning radius little diagram and made it the same scale as that outlot B and the cul-de -sac with the intention that
we would show you, or could show you that, how that works. The little red thing on there is the fire truck
going out presumably. And the green lines are the actual wheels of the fire truck and the blue line is the
overhang of the basket in the front. And so that radius that exists there is adequate to make the turn with the
truck. It also works at the intersection of Minnewashta Parkway, although we'd have to tweak the island a little.
We have to make the island a little smaller. So I think it works to get the truck in and out and have the island
there. But the engineering department's issue, whether the island belongs there I guess is.
Kate Aanenson: What the Fire Marshal recommended is that they be posted no parking on the interior. Both
sides of the, around the island and around the outside of the curb too.
Councilman Wing: I don't think that's even practical to discuss. That wouldn't be an option, I would think.
It's sort of humorous to even state that. Alright.
Rick Sathre: Or the island could be smaller. We'd like to have some green space.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And I agree. I happened that I just flew over an area and I was looking down and I
said geez. They stick out like a sore thumb the other day and I just noticed. I happen to like them but that's a
preference and the Fire Marshal, I don't want him to hear me say that. Kate, on the landscaping issue. Mr.
Durr I think is well known for having come in and cut illegally and he wasn't tagged I think the city's been
cooperative and as I mentioned, it was the best thing that could have happened because it maybe gives us,
because this isn't a PUD, a chance to strong arm just a little bit. And we talked about all the landscaping in
here. I don't see any. There are some existing trees but a lot of those existing aren't much.
Kate Aanenson: This isn't the final landscaping plan.
Councilman Wing: Well I understand. Here's specifically what I would request if it was to come back on the
final. That each lot have 3 trees on the 13 lots that aren't treed. Now there are, I won't argue with the ones
that have any trees on them but for the 13 that aren't, I'd like to see boulevard trees in front so that out of these
3 trees, 2 would be in the front yard and 1 in the back, and I don't care how the placement went but to get some
boulevard effect in here. But more important, along Highway 7 we've got just a scattering of pine trees and I'd
like to see 50 to 75 foot shade trees dispersed along that section too. So that we get some shade, some overstory
shade trees in there and I guess, I was looking at 50 foot centers and I came up with what, 12 or I can't
remember. 20. I don't have my number in front of me. I guess I counted an additional 26 shade trees along
the entire frontage of Highway 7 and then running down Minnewashta Parkway to that, let's see it'd be Lot 2, 3,
75
Fi
L
1
n
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' 4 and 5, as I saw it. And the reason I bring that up is that this is an enormous area and the church that came
through last time, and a very small area, we suggested 13 trees and they said what an excellent idea. They put
in 16. And then they're a very small area. So that asking for 26 trees in an area this big is just nothing. I
mean they're barely even noticeable at that point because of the spread on them. So that would be my request to
Council to consider that as a landscaping plan comes in, I would ask that there'd be, along with existing pine
trees. I don't ask for any more of those, that we get some of the overstory shade trees we've been talking about
all these years on Highway 7 running down the parkway and then these non treed lots, given the fact that we
' don't know what was removed, at least 3 go back into those blank lots. That would be my request. I think
that's a reasonable request and then with that, I wouldn't bring up the other issue of what happened and what got
cut and what got lost. I think that's all I had on that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Looks good. My concern is with the Hoelke's. I can only, well. I know how I'd feel if I
was being told or ... I wonder Kate, I mean can some things be juggled around so that doesn't have to happen?
Mayor Chmiel: That 105 feet that would go back totally, we're talking 75 feet back from the shoreline. With
an additional 30 feet, does that give us that 42% or the 45 %?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it'd be an additional 30 feet so you'd be 135 feet back for the 45 %.
' Councilman Wing: But then we get into all these crazy variances and I'd just as soon avoid that if we could.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean by the time, the problem is once you bring it back to, yikes. Once you bring it
back 135 feet. That's taking over half the lot.
Councilman Mason: You're saying it's not doable...
Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Michael?
Councilman Mason: No. Richard pretty much covered anything else I had to say. I mean it's a good deal.
It's a good project.
Councilman Wing: So what do you want to do about 8?
Councilman Mason: Well that, yeah. I'm not done yet because I think we need to help out the existing
neighbors. But I want to hear what Mark has to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. Overall I think it's a good project. I don't have a whole lot of problems with
it I keep coming back to how do we solve the problem on 8. I wish I had some wonderful ideas. I'm willing
to say that I, I don't appreciate or I guess I don't in one sense like the fact that the shape of the house platted on
Lot 8 is now all of a sudden changed real dramatically to elongated, which makes it even worse. Everything
' else on here is the same that it was on the plat but Lot 8 all of a sudden has changed shape in terms of the
house configuration.
76
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: What was the footprint of that? 1
Rick Sathre: Can I speak to that Your Honor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Rick Sathre: Well now I guess blame me. I'm a dumb engineer and I'm not a house designer. My company '
drew houses on those lots which are just very simple representations of a house. All we were really intended to
show was does it make more sense to have the garage on one side or the other. And the truth of it is, the people
that will help to design the houses on these lots are the ultimate buyers and Ken and the other builders that go in '
there will work with architects and with those buyers to try to design a house that fits that family's needs. And
that, the home that Ken is illustrating on Lot 8 is one that he's just building now. He thought that that might be
representative of the type of house that you'd see on the lot. And if that's true, the houses that I illustrated are
undersized.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess that's my point. I mean if you take this house and put it on any one of your
other lots, there may be problems elsewhere. Not just on this lot.
Kate Aanenson: What the intent of this, with these elevations, we require what's code and that's to review the
grading plan. What the intention is to get the elevation of these pads such that the drain ... so that's the ,
requirement. It's just a footprint to see what the lowest elevation and we also ... just to see whether they're
rambler or walkouts or whether they're splits. And we've indicated where there's a problem and in the staff
report we've identified some that we'll have to raise these up to get the proper drainage towards the street. So
the intent of this is, obviously there's a setback variance that they've asked for but ... otherwise they're requiring
to go through and meet the setbacks... Most people don't build perfectly square houses.
Councilman Senn: I understand that. The only other. I
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, Don's got something here.
Don Ashworth: I was just going to ask Mr. Sathre. What if the City Council just comes back and say you '
figure it out as long as you maintain a 45 degree angle? It seems like there's a lot of options in that we're
going to spend a lot of time trying to engineer something that you should be doing.
Councilman Senn: Well Don, I want to add something. I mean when I went out there and drove this and really
looked around and then came back and looked at the plat again and stuff. I mean to me it seems like the
obvious solution is not to look to the north. I mean to me the obvious solution is to look towards Minnewashta
Parkway. We've got Outlot A there. We've got ponding there. You know maybe there's some give and take
there but I mean maybe we can downsize the requirements of that lot and still let it meet a beachlot type of
thing. I don't know. I mean to me there's, yeah Dick's choking. But he wore a tie tonight so he deserves it
but. I don't know. You've got the reservation next to it. I mean to me there's enough there that it seems to me
that there's something there that could work.
Councilman Mason: If I could just interject. That would still meet what Don said. We don't care how they do I
it, as long as Hoelke's get their 45 degrees.
Councilman Senn: Well and I, and I really sympathize with Hoelke's and I'd like to see the 45 percent but at
77
J
J
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
the same time I have a real hard time going back and telling the other people that they have to lose over 50% of
their lot. I mean I think there's some compromise there other than a hard and fast say, you know...
Councilman Mason: I look at all these lot sizes here and I don't know that anybody has to lose 50% of any lot
size with some juggling around, that they would need to do.
Councilman Senn: If you looked at the lot lines. Okay lot lines you generally look at as it relates to being
perpendicular from the lake. Everything here makes sense. It's pretty much—until you get down to the end.
See that's not a problem to Mr. Durr has caused himself. That's being caused in effect by a neighboring
property lying with houses very close to the neighboring property. I mean a lot closer than any of us would
allow them nowadays and stuff so the thing is, I think I'd like to get as close to that 45 as we can but I don't
think we should give direction that don't come back until you get 45. I think that let's get as close to it as we
can but let's shift down, let's see what we can shift down there and accommodate from the two ends and see if
we can accomplish something.
Councilman Wing: Without a variance.
Councilman Senn: Well, I'd rather see, you know. And I know Dick could choke on this again. I mean I'd
rather see us vary on something like the lot down here where we can put some tight controls on it than I would
like to vary screwing around with the lots where we can't put the tight controls on it. And that's just a personal
thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. In other words what you're saying is basically to shift from Lot 1, 2, 3 and move that all
back to the west. Because that would then extend Lot number 8 right along with it.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean the other option is, maybe the whole thing should shift and maybe Lot 8 can be
a common lot. I don't know. I mean if it's. You get into us start trying to design a project and you're asking
for trouble.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I don't have any intention of doing that. But I do think it's legitimate to ask that the
existing neighbors are compatible. Are impinged upon as little as possible.
Councilman Wing: And I like Don's idea of just saying, you know I think in the preliminary approval that's the
Council's request that you try and work that out and engineer to the best of your ability and figure something...
final. End of discussion or whatever.
Mayor Chmiel: I would say that would be exactly what it should be. Yes.
Kenneth Duty: Can I ask one thing? I'm Ken Durr. Your comment about adjusting and possibly making the
beachlot smaller, is that something that this body would approve?
Councilman Senn: I said it's something that I'm willing to consider but I'd like you to show me you know how
that works. I'm not sure Dick will accept that because Dick's pretty, he's a lot more stringent on that than I am
but. I mean I'd like to see some alternatives. Now I'm not saying come up with a dozen of them but I think
it'd be nice to see a few different alternatives. Kind of like on Byerly's. I would have loved to have seen a few
alternatives other than just...
78
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 '
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah because it's strictly in the preliminary stages, as you're well aware and before the final
stage comes back, the Council will really look at it strongly to make sure that that is being addressed.
Kenneth Durr: We feel however that to make the lakeside lots narrower than they are to accommodate even a
'
wider lot than Lot 8. Lot 8 is the largest site that we have. And we wish to do whatever we can to
accommodate the Hoelke's. I've been really trying very, very hard to get as much sight angle guaranteed to
them as possible. It started out with 18 degrees and then we have it at 32. I know it's a ways from 45 which
they would like but I would not want to devalue the lake lots in making those narrower. But I think it was
,
possible for us to have a beachlot that would be something narrower than 200 feet. That would certainly be a
viable consideration for us. We could work along with you on that. The other alternative of moving the lot line
on 8 further north. That is possible if we do not have to have the Outlot B as an access because if we move that
'
lot line northerly, then we don't have enough land there. So we're kind of boxed in on that side if we want to
maintain an access for the people to the east. And yet we really don't want to devalue our lake lots either.
kind look try to tighten
Councilman Senn: But Ken what I was just saying though is you might just of at and
things up a little bit both north and to the west. I mean and you can leave the road in Outlot B but maybe move
things a little bit. Again, I mean if that causes a variance, then I mean to me that's a little easier variance to
deal with in your lot size up there where it's not affecting anybody. I don't know. I mean again it comes down
'
to options in terms of.
Rick Sathre: We respect what you're saying very much. I think it's wonderful that ... We're not designing this
'
subdivision to meet the ordinance. We're designing it to meet the expectations of a higher market.
Councilman Senn: You guys have done a great job that way. I mean I can't say enough. We just reviewed
another one out there a couple weeks ago that.
Mayor Chmiel: We turned down. '
Councilman Senn: It isn't even comparable.
Rick Sathre: What we really did, and you know you've never seen the proposal ... but to get this Outlot B ,
corridor in here we squeezed those lots down and we went to what we thought was a practical... It is a problem.
Councilman Mason: Well this is preliminary. This is preliminary plat right? '
Mayor Chmiel: I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason: Dick, tell me. You didn't make any major changes in 1 thru 31 did you?
Councilman Senn: I'd really like to see them go back and work on it a little bit. '
Councilman Mason: Well I'm going to add, I want to add condition 32 to this. I mean it's preliminary plat.
We can always...
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Put that additional on it.
79
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: I mean that's.
Councilman Senn: Well if you're comfortable with that but I mean we're talking about potentially about some
significant changes. I mean it may even change the variances, I mean is what I'm saying.
Councilman Mason: Well then it has to come back before us again anyway.
Kate Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification on ... variance. If there's a condition that it maintain a 45
degree and the applicant does come back and now needs variances to accommodate that, does that have to go
back to the Planning Commission and then come back to this body for the variance request?
Roger Knutson: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: But we created it.
Councilman Senn: If we create it?
Kate Aanenson: The applicant has a hard time meeting the 45 degrees ... some relief from the ordinance, he needs
a variance. He would have to go to the Planning Commission fast and then come to the...
Mayor Chmiel: When can this be put back on Planning Commission?
Kate Aanenson: Once they come up with a proposal, we'll put them on the next meeting.
Don Ashworth: But don't you want to have it somehow considered by this body to make sure.
Kate Aanenson: In the motion tonight, as a part of that they need to seek a variance, I just wanted to make clear
that they do have to go back to the Planning Commission...
Councilman Senn: I thought they were advisory. Why can't we just do the variance?
Roger Knutson: Because you have an ordinance that says if you're going to grant a variance, here's the
process. This type of variance. This type of variance needs a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Councilman Senn: Rather than a public hearing before us?
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Roger Knutson: It's your right to ignore their advice.
Councilman Wing: I'd be happy with 1 thru 21 with the exception of the landscaping plan to include additional
shade trees along the parkway and Highway 7 and the non treed lots be increased to 3. And then I would take
Mike's number 32 which is.
Councilman Mason: The developer will work to achieve 45 percent.
80
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
Mayor Chmiel: 45 degree.
Councilman Mason: 45 degree, excuse me. 45 degree view of Hoelke's. Somebody help me out. It's 1:00. '
Roger Knutson: 45 degree view of the lake from center of his property.
Kate Aanenson: From the center of their home. '
Councilman Mason: Is that your motion or my motion then?
Councilman Wing: I'll second your's. '
Councilman Mason: Okay. I made the motion. He seconded it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call the question.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat #94 -1, '
Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the t
public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -
fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading unless the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall
be restored with sod or seed and wood -fiber blanket. '
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be '
submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed
District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with ,
their conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
'
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event and provide ponding
'
calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City
Engineer to review and approve.
7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a
maximum of 300 feet apart.
81
,
I City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
' 8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain file system in accordance
with the construction plans.
' 9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and
ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
t 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal
approval
11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
' 12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12, Block 1 should be a
minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This may raise the house elevation to 971 or
greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff recommends the applicant re- evaluate this and include
exterior draintile around the house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer
along the property line.
13. The house pads south of Landings Dr., along the lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road
elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route overland
flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route
surface flow away from Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 2.
14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the fast ten feet and no more than 3:1
thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
' 15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of -way. In addition, a
drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage from the east of this development
into the easterly proposed pond.
' 16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned.
' 17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive and the median
deleted.
I 18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to provide more of a
perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance.
19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway or Highway 7.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments units. The rate per
' unit is $760.00.
21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of right -of -way from the
center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1.
82
11
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8, Block 2.
'
23. A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant and the residents of Ironwood for
the use of Outlot B.
'
24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width.
25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 1l and 16, Block 1 and Lot 8,
Block 2.
26. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Hwy. 7, as well as streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway
needs to be provided."
27. Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the rate in force at the time of
building permit application with one -third of the park and trail fees paid at the time of final plat.
'
29. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit.
'
30. "No Parking" signs shall be posted on the inside and outside of the landscaped islands of the cul -de -sacs.
31. The developer shall provide for a homeowners association to maintain the landscaped islands.
32. The developer will work to achieve a 45 degree view of the lake from the center of the Hoelke's home.
33. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include additional overstory shade trees along Minnewashta
Parkway and Highway 7 along with an additional 3 trees on every non treed lot.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
'
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m.
'
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
'
Prepared by Nann Opheim
R
t
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
1 MARCH 16, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina, Jeff Farmakes, Ron
Nutting, and Ladd Conrad
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts
' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner H; and Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
I PUBLIC HEARING:
CHARLIE JAMES FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE
SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS CENTER, LOCATED ON
LOT 4, BLOCK 1, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road, Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay, questions or comments for staff.
Mancino: Are they also asking for approval of the pylon sign and the monument sign at this
' time too?
Generous: Not specifically. They brought those back as a part of the sign package for the
entire site. The 20 foot monument sign will be 80 square feet of signage. It is permissible
under our code.
Mancino: But so we're looking at a whole signage package right now.
Generous: Basically yes.
Mancino: Okay, so it would include the pylon sign and the monument sign and all the wall
sign, right?
1
1
1
� I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: In essence, yes.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: Do we have, maybe I missed it. Do we have a copy of the criteria that we use to
grant variances?
Mancino: It was in the staff report.
Generous: Starting on page 3, the findings.
Farmakes: So it's incorporated into that? Okay.
Generous: Those are the a thru f are the criteria.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, we can ask more questions after the applicant comes up right?
Scott: Okay. I'd like to hear from the applicant please. Please step forward and identify
yourself and speak into the microphone.
Charlie James: Hello again. I'm Charlie James. You've probably heard all you want from
me. I guess I'd just refer once again to the type written narrative that we provided in the
report and also through the sign designs here that we have provided that are drawn in strict
accordance with the existing code and would be built out of this same material as the
building. Since our last get together here I managed to get a copy of a more 3 dimensional
artist rendering that Byerly's submitted so I'll pass this around. I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
Scott: Good, any questions?
Ledvina: Do you find the staff report acceptable?
Charlie James: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
Farmakes: I'd like to see the drawing before I close out on that.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Sure. I
Mancino: Charlie, now Fine Foods, that is in reference to the grocery items? To the I
restaurant?
Charlie James: I was told that that's part of their, that's a trademark Byerly's. Fine Food is ,
part of some trademark. They're just going to the Chicago market now for the first time.
They're building a store, or they're in the process which will follow right after this one in
Highland Park. It will be the first store and so they felt that in those areas that they're '
putting in Chicago where they're not as known as they are here, that they would introduce
that onto their buildings there and so they decided to introduce it here for consistency. I'm
afraid I don't know whether they're referring to their restaurant or their groceries on that. '
Mancino: Okay. It almost looks like here to me architecturally it's to symmetry of signs on
each side of Byerly's more than anything else. I have no more questions of the applicant.
Scott: Okay, any more questions or comments? Great. This is a public hearing and if I '
could have a motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Scott: Is there anybody here who would like to speak on the Byerly's signage variance? '
Seeing none, let the record show that there's no one here to speak on the first item. Can I
have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Scott: Comments.
Mancino: I have a question for Bob. Bob in your findings on (a), you felt that the sign
could or should be bigger. The signage area on the West 78th Street and you compared it to
Target and you compared it to Market Square as one of the reasons for being able to, and
when you made that comparison, what was your thinking as far as the rest of the signage
package? If I look at the rest of 78th Street and I look at Target and Market Square, they
don't have a 20 foot pylon sign. All they have, each one of them has one monument sign.
So if we're going to use them to say yes for bigger square footage, shouldn't we also use '
them as the benchmark for signage on West 78th? So we're going to use them for part of it
but not the other? I mean that's what I'm asking. '
3
1�
d
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Generous: I didn't really look at it that way because as far as the pylon sign went, they were
meeting code and so I wasn't putting the package together in that sense. I was just trying to
compare the bulk of the building, the mass of the building and what they were requesting...
From a policy standpoint, yeah. It might make sense to put the whole thing together for West
78th Street.
Mancino: Okay. Because that's where I kind of come from. I'm seeing it, if we are going
to do something different here, allow a variance and if we use Target and we use Market
Square as the reason that we're allowing this variance, then I think that we should follow it
through on the entire signage package. I mean it only would make sense. Any discussion on
that?
Farmakes: I'd agree with it.
Scott: Yeah, I too.
Ledvina: Well I think the, just from in a comparison sense. I didn't know what the pylon
sign for the bank was and as I understand that's like about 20 feet? Something like that.
Mancino: For which?
Ledvina: For the bank sign.
Farmakes: 20 feet in height?
Farmakes: Are you talking about Americana or what?
Mancino: Which bank?
Ledvina: No, the Chanhassen Bank. No, okay. Then I'm mistaken.
Mancino: Well when I drove down, and I was looking at West 78th Street to see you know
what kind of pylon signs there are existing there right now. I was looking at Target. I was
looking at Market Square. I also looked at the Country Suites sign, which is not a 20 foot
sign either. I mean that's a block away but I kind of looked at the overall area to see what
was going on there because that's the comparison we're making and the reason for the
variance and it just struck me that you know if we do allow this, then I would like to see
compatible signs also. Monument signs. Although I like the design of the pylon sign. I like
it because it's kind of airy in the way it looks versus your squared off monument sign and I
still like the lower height in the sign.
n
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 11
Scott: What height would you like, if there's going to be a monument sign like that, what '
size would you want to see there?
Mancino: I would say either 8 to 10 feet. I'm not sure what's, probably 8 feet. Do you '
know Bob off hand what the Target? I know that the Market Square is 10, isn't it? Because
we just saw a package for that Wendy's which was the same exact so it's either 8 or 10 feet. '
Aanenson: For Target? '
Mancino: Yes.
Aanenson: Here it is. It's 8 feet. '
Mancino: Okay, 8 feet.
Aanenson: Yeah, 8 x 6.
Mancino: Thank you. '
Scott: Well with regard to this particular issue, what would you be in favor of relative to '
sizes, variance, etc? I mean would you support the staff recommendation? Or if not, how
would you see that changing so that you would support it?
Mancino: Well I guess what I just look at, on the West 78th, the big Byerly's sign that is '
over the entrance that's 304 square feet, to me it could be 3/4 of that size and still be just
fine. I don't support the Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours as signage and I guess I feel that '
overall, I mean I don't want to get into looking at different businesses that come in and
decide what language that they can be putting up on their walls besides the name or the
registered trademark or the logo of their business. So that is what I would limit it to. '
Scott: So you'd support the Byerly's about 75 %, this is the West 78th, Byerly's West 78th
about 3/4 the size but not Fine Foods.
Mancino: Not Fine Foods and Open 24 Hours. I have a little harder time with the Wine and
Spirits and obviously that I guess did not pass on Monday night at City Council so we don't
even know if there's going to be a wine and fine spirits. Is that something that we should
still deal with tonight, even though it's off? ,
Conrad: Sure.
5
,' Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: I support signage for kind of a store within a store, which I feel that this is. And
where I get confused is then if there's a restaurant within a store, at what point do we limit
1 the number of signs and I don't know that yet. So I'm going to wait on that part and listen
to everybody else.
' Scott: Okay. Well for purposes of coming to a decision, I've got this broken up into a
couple of things. We've got the Fine Foods, 24 Hours. We've got the West 78th Street
Byerly's. We've got Wine and Spirits and then we have the restaurant. Is that a good
' framework to work from so we can say yes, no, yes, no, because I think we need to come to
an agreement here. Would anybody else like to, is there any discussion? Any additional
discussion?
Farmakes: Are we going to make comments around the board?
Scott: Yeah. Yeah.
' Farmakes: We can jump around?
Scott: Sure, that's fine. You can go.
' Farmakes: I'd agree with what has been said except for personally I would be fine with
Open 24 Hours and Wine and Spirits. The criteria being it's a separate entrance for the store
' similar to their other operations. It requires a separate license. So I don't have a problem
with that because of the amount of square footage that's there, which I think is the overriding
call for the variance here. I think it's reasonable with a store that size to see that the part of
' the store and the elevation facing south has a reasonable opportunity to be seen from
Highway 5 because of it's location and the fact that it's a, or subregional, a destination for
people outside of town finding it. I do think however that the east and the west applications
' are different than what the applicant is applying for. I don't think they need to be that strong.
I would limit any signage on the building to the west. Rely on monumenture for at the entry
points along 78th and along Kerber Boulevard. I would eliminate the wall signage to the east.
Scott: Eliminate wall signage to the east or to the west?
' Farmakes: I would leave it to a monument. An entry monument or get it off of the wall. I
don't think it's required that it be that large. The sight distances from the roads, they're
virtually right next to the building. Right next to the sign. Obviously a different assignment
to the south. Facing the highway.
Scott: Yeah. So you'd support the size of the Byerly's logo as proposed?
6
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 11
Farmakes: I think it's reasonable because it has a further distance than Target. I think it's '
reasonable. If we could moderate and eliminate the pylon sign to monument for the entrance
to the south, on 78th, and the entrance to the east. And take the rest of the signage off the
buildings as far as Byerly's goes. And leave Wine and Spirits and Open 24 Hours. Get rid
of Fine Foods. I think a case has been made that that's a trademark. It's a generic verbiage
and it's far enough away from Byerly's that it's a category capability. '
Scott: Okay good. Matt.
'
Ledvina: Bo we've of a couple different things that have been proposed. Overall I think
Y g P g P P
that the proposal is acceptable the way it's been laid out and I look at how I think it's going
to look after it's built and I don't have a problem with what's there. Fine Foods, Open 24
,
Hours, Wine and Spirits and the Byerly's logo. I think Nancy has a good point with the
pylon. I think maybe 20 feet is just a little bit too much there.
'
Scott: What would you like to see?
Ledvina: I think 10 to 12 feet would be acceptable. I don't know. Maybe it should be 8
i
feet but you know I'm okay with 10 or 12.
Scott: And then what about the, so then there's signage proposed on the east and the west
'
elevations. That's acceptable to you?
'
Ledvina: Well, as it relates to the provisions that are laid out in the ordinance, I think you
have to have the street frontage to get the signage.
'
Farmakes: Staff is recommending denial of the west elevation. I made a recommendation
that the east elevation be removed and allow it to have a monument on Kerber rather than
virtually if you drove on Kerber you'd be right next to the sign, whether it's on the wall or
'
whether it's on the street. My comment was from the distance that it has to be read, it's not
necessary that it be that size. From the east elevation. The only sight line is from city park
and 78th.
'
Mancino: I kind of like that. That's kind of nice because if you're in Market Square, you
could look up you know Kerber.
'
Farmakes: It would allow sight from Kerber and sight from 78th but it would not be
obtrusive to virtually what's civic property.
Ledvina: You're restricting them beyond what the ordinance would say then.
7
,' Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: Well it depends on how you want to look at this. You're granting a variance so
you're not restricting them. You're offering.
Ledvina: Right, there's a give and take.
Farmakes: There's a give and take situation there. I think the primary emphasis to the
applicant is to be seen from TH 5. I would agree that that's the motivation for the variance.
I think that that's reasonable.
Nutting: Jeff did you come out in favor of the pylon and putting the monuments as part also
on 78th?
Farmakes: I would be in favor, I don't want to take away from some of the comments. I
just wanted to clarify the differences between the comments that have been made up to that
point. My comment is to support what Nancy said to the exclusion of Fine Foods and the east
elevation. Currently if you look on where it says east elevation, the secondary sign. That
signage is virtually facing City Hall and for direction or people coming down Kerber or
people coming down 78th to see the location, if it was a monumenture at the entrance area
there, that that would suffice. And still follow the moderation that we used with Target. It'd
be similar to how Target reads off of 78th.
Scott: Okay. Matt?
Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I would accept that. Elimination of that signage on the east
side.
Scott: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: Jeff you said eliminate the signage on the east side?
Farmakes: No, I said replace it with monumenture like Target.
Ledvina: Well, the wall signage.
Conrad: Yeah.
Farmakes: And the entrance point from the east.
Ledvina: So add a monument sign.
N.
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 11
Farmakes: There'd be two monument signs in place of a pylon. I
Conrad: We're all going to have different opinions. I don't mind the, I think most of the '
signage that's requested is quite nice. Basically, but I do have some exceptions and they're a
little bit different than everybody. I like all the wine and spirits. The fine foods is fine. I
don't like the 24 hours out there. I think that's, I just don't want that. That's not what, I '
don't want that. The pylon sign in front, I think we should take it down in size. That's sort
of a give and take process here to allow the variance and I don't have a clue what to say to
Jeff's proposal. Not a clue. I was comfortable with the east elevation as it was provided the '
24 hours was taken off of that. So I'm probably in a different spot than everybody else.
Scott: Ron. '
Nutting: I could go along also with the adjustment in the pylon. I guess how low do you '
bring it before a pylon has to become a monument?
Scott: I'm just saying, chop the legs off and it becomes a monument. '
Nutting: So I don't know what impact bringing it down to 12 feet has. If it stays a pylon or
if it becomes a monument or how that fits the plan. I'm okay with the east elevation signage ,
but there's the give and take side but I think if we're bringing down the pylon, I mean there's
give and take going already with the pylon coming down. I think the east elevation sign
could stay. I'm okay with the Byerly's logo out front at the present size. And as far as the I
24 hours, fine foods, wine and spirits, I can live with all three of those.
Scott: Good. Yeah, I'm fine with the Byerly's on West 78th. I think that's the kind of '
treatment that we're looking at. I mean what we don't want to see is a 4 x 8, back lit piece
of plastic so I think that works well. I don't think the 24 hours, open 24 hours is appropriate.
Wine and Spirits is fine. I like the suggestion of the signage on the east face being replaced '
with a monument and also having the large sign out by the street on West 78th to be
something that's in the 10 to 12 foot range. So are there any more comments? Any more
discussion? ,
Mancino: Yeah, I have a question and that is Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the applicant
what he thinks of Jeff's suggestion on Kerber. To take off the wall sign and put it on a '
monument sign on Kerber. I'd like to get his thoughts on that.
Charlie James: Well unfortunately I'm not in a position to deal with it. The people from '
Byerly's so I don't know what their—might be. I guess reducing the, I think one of the
reasons for the pylon down on West 78th Street for instance is because the code specifically
9
J
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' allows a pylon and so we just tried to draw what we had down there to fit the code. I would
think at that point, I'm speaking for Byerly's here but I can't imagine getting too much brain
damage if that was lowered or consistent with the other ones we're doing. Unfortunately
the ordinance doesn't provide for that. It says you can have a pylon ... so that's how we ended
up with that. But I could see some, although Target has a pylon 36 feet tall, I can appreciate,
' I guess what I heard tonight for the first time was a concern about West 78th Street. What
that streetscape looks like. I appreciate that argument. As long as everything else going out
West 78th Street we're consistent here ... going on there further west and everybody's got these
big signs, what are you going to do out there? Because they're in a wedge, are you going to
say they're along Highway 5 or are they on West 78th? Do they get to push their pylon up
' to, I don't know. I guess I have, maybe we could get some consensus or direction from
Byerly's prior to City Council or something, I don't know. I'm afraid they're not here
tonight. The gentleman that ordinarily attends this is on vacation with his family this week
' so I guess I'm indicating that we're going along with that ... and I guess I can appreciate the
concern on West 78th. Whether Byerly's will like it or not...
Scott: Okay. Any other discussion?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
' approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to permit a maximum
of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's. A variance of 351 square
feet and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east elevation of Byerly's. A
' variance of 296 square feet. Approval of the signage on the west elevation of the retail
center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west elevation of Byerly's. This
approval is subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the following additions.
' Number 7, a pylon sign should be limited to a height of 12 feet. Number 8, the words "Open
24 Hours" should be eliminated from all signage text.
Conrad: I second that.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
' Mancino: Yeah. You're suggesting Matt that we say 12 feet even though Target and Market
Square, their monument signs are only 8 feet? And why? I mean I just want to hear some
' rationale. If we're trying to have the whole area kind of have the same comparable,
compatible signage.
' Ledvina: Well I don't think 4 feet is, Market Square is just 10 feet I don't think. Well that'd
be an extra 2 feet. I don't think that difference is able to be seen. I think that the, by taking
' them down to 8 feet, I think what happens is maybe this design doesn't become feasible
10
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
anymore. And I like this design. I like the way this is set up. So I don't want to see this '
eliminated. I just want to see it scaled down. Perhaps they'll actually scale the whole thing
down and we might get a smaller Byerly's on there. But I would leave that up to them in '
terms of how they would do it
Mancino: So you kind of just picked an arbitrary height. Instead of picking, would you '
entertain a friendly amendment of the maximum height not being any larger or any higher
than either the Market Square or the Target monument instead of kind of picking an arbitrary.
Ledvina: Well then that would be 10 feet right? '
Mancino: Yeah. '
Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that.
Farmakes: What about the issue, the east elevation? You're P P g ro osin it as it's drawn right '
now?
Scott Except for the 24 hours. '
Ledvina: Yes, eliminate the. '
Farmakes: No, the east elevation would be attached to the wall rather than the monument? '
Ledvina: Yes. I think that's.
Farmakes: That's a much larger scale. '
Ledvina: Pardon? I
Farmakes: That's a much larger scale design than would be on a monument of 10 feet.
Ledvina: Right. I think that again what they're requesting for, or requesting is reasonable. I
don't want to monkey with it too much. Maybe that's the wrong word. I don't feel that I
want or I don't feel we should restrict them to that degree. To totally eliminating that I
signage.
Farmakes: But the only sight line for that signage is the government civic park and
Chanhassen Bank.
11
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
I Ledvina: Well, you can see the sign as you're on the road as well.
Farmakes: You can't see it from Kerber coming to the south until you become adjacent to
the building. And coming on the east, west on 78th, you couldn't see, you'd see it at the
same time you saw the front end elevation or the south elevation of the building.
' Scott: And the monument sign.
' Farmakes: Because of the projectory of the angle that you see it.
Scott: You'd also see the monument sign out front with a monument pylon on West 78th.
' Well too it looks as if the Byerly's on the east elevation is the same size as the Byerly's on
the south elevation.
' Ledvina: Is that the case?
Generous: It is.
' (There were several conversations oin on simultaneous) at this point.)
g g Y P )
' Ledvina: Well if you would like to make a friendly amendment to that affect, I would accept
that.
' Farmakes: I'll make a friendly amendment that the east elevation sign be reduced to the
word Byerly's, similar to the monument sign on the 78th Street south elevation. And reduced
' to the same height as Target and Market Square.
Scott: Which would be?
' Mancino: I think we said max 10.
' Scott: So we're looking at two 10 foot monument signs, Kerber and West 78th.
Mancino: I have a question for discussion Matt. When you gave square footage, total square
footage earlier, on each elevation. Did it take in 24 hours because I know that you wanted to
eliminate that so wouldn't that take away from the overall square footage that we would
allow?
Ledvina: Yes, I would imagine so. Actually that's something we need to be concerned
about?
12
J
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 '
Scott: Well we're taking away three occurrences of open 24 hours and I don't know if that's
2 feet tall by 8 or something. I
Ledvina: Well can we just, can I add another condition. Condition number 9 that the
footages, the square footage identified in the main body of the recommendation be adjusted '
to, adjusted downward to account for the elimination of the Open 24 Hours text of the
signage. Is that acceptable?
Scott: Is there any more discussion? '
Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question from Bob? I
Scott: Certainly.
Mancino: Bob, on recommendation number 4 you have the signage will have consistency
throughout the development. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and
height. Does that mean that you know, a Byerly's has PMS 286. I mean that's their logo '
color. Does that mean that every other retail store in this development has to use this color
for their signage?
Generous: No, that's not the intent no. But we wouldn't want to have clashing colors that '
don't go together.
Farmakes: Are we specifying what colors we're seeing in the signs? '
Mancino: Well yeah, are we specifying what colors we're seeing on the signage? I suppose '
we should do that.
Farmakes: Determine that as Byerly's blue. '
Scott: Would that be condition number 11? '
Mancino: Yeah. Friendly amendment Matthew. That we specify that for Byerly's, that
there's consistency in color and that is the Byerly's blue which is PMS 286. '
Ledvina: I would accept that.
Scott: So we have a motion on the floor. Let's see, can we have a second? '
Ledvina: Do you accept those? The second has to accept those amendments as well? I
13 1
C
C
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Conrad: I don't.
Ledvina: Okay, you don't.
Farmakes: I'd second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we.
Ledvina: Well can we, excuse me. Are there any particular ones that you don't agree with?
Conrad: Yeah. We're kind of tinkering with the, we're designing signage here. I don't
know, I'm real uncomfortable with that. I like to see what it is and how the applicant say
that makes sense so. A couple things did make sense. The 24 hours to me made sense
taking that out. Approving well designed signage made sense, whether we did it through a
variance or through another vehicle but as we start gerry rigging signage here, as resident
experts, I'm not comfortable with that.
Ledvina: So if you didn't accept the friendly amendments, then it goes back to my original
motion and we have to vote on that because we have a motion and a second. Is that correct?
Conrad: I think you had another second. I think Jeff could second your motion. I withdrew
my second. So Jeff can second it.
Scott: Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye?
Mancino: Can we state the motion in it's entirety?
Scott: Certainly. Would you like to do that?
Ledvina: Well we have the, okay I'll go ahead and do that if I can. Item number 7.
Reduces the maximum height of the pylon to 10 feet. Number 8, which eliminates the words
"Open 24 Hours" from all signage text. Number 9 which was Jeff's friendly amendment as it
related to the elimination of the signage on the east elevation of the building. Replacing that
signage with a monument.
Scott: 10 foot.
Ledvina: Okay. And then number 10 which reduces the square footages for the signage
stated in the body of the recommendation to account for the removal of the words "Open 24
Hours" from the signage text. I think that's it.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 '
Scott: And then number 11 was Nancy's.
Mancino: The color. '
Ledvina: Okay. And number 11 would be the use of the consistent color PMS 286. '
Mancino: PMS 286. Byerly's blue.
Scott: Is everybody ready to vote? 1
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
'
City Council approve the variance to the sign ordinance for the West Village Center to
permit a maximum of 431 square feet of sign area on the south elevation of Byerly's (a
variance of 351 square feet), and a maximum of 376 square feet of signage on the east
'
elevation of Byerly's, (a variance of 296 square feet), approval of the signage on the west
elevation of the retail center and denial of variances to permit signage on the west
elevation of Byerly's This approval is subject to the following conditions:
'
1. Signage shall be individual block letters. No pan or panel signs shall be permitted.
'
2. All signs re a sep arate permit.
g � P P
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. Consistency in signage
t
shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
4. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
5. Individual letters may not exceed four (4) feet in height exclusive of the Byerly's sign.
'
6. The signage for the remainder of the development shall comply with city code.
7. A pylon sign shall be limited to a height of 10 feet.
'
8. The words "Open 24 Hours" should be eliminated from all signage text.
9. The east elevation sign be reduced to the word Byerly's, similar to the monument
sign on the 78th Street south elevation and reduced to the same height as Target
and Market Square.
15 1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' 10. The square footages for the signage stated in the body of the recommendation shall
account for the removal of the words "Open 24 Hours" from the signage text.
11. Byerly's name shall have the consistent color blue which is PMS 286.
' All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
' Scott: The motion carries 4 to 2 and Ron, if you could summarize your thoughts on your nay
vote.
' Nutting: In my earlier comments I basically agreed with the east elevation signage. I guess
I'm new to this game and I still haven't fully figured out the process but I'm less a tinkerer
and more along the lines with what Ladd was saying. I don't, I'm not comfortable with
t picking everything apart to what I see as opposed to what the developers have spent a lot of
time working on.
' Scott: Okay. And Ladd, your comments.
Conrad: I've made them already.
Scott: Good. And this goes to City Council?
Generous: March 28th.
(Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the
remaining items.)
' PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED
' _SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE
DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES.
J
Public Present:
Name Address
Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
John Dietrich: John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the landscape architects and civil
engineers preparing the findings for Heritage Development. I have just some clarifications
that I'd like to put to each of the I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you.
Address those. We've had a chance to discuss it We are basically in approval with the '
recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that ... Should we speak to
those now or would you like to discuss the plan first?
17
John Dobbs 450 East Co. Rd. D, Little Canada
Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge
Bob Generous, Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for staff? Hearing none, would the applicant or
'
their representatives wish to address the Planning Commission? Please identify yourself.
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. I
'
guess I'd just briefly like to give an overview and let John Dietrich from RLK will go
through some of the concerns. I guess I'd just briefly like to tell you a little bit about me.
I'm a trained landscape architect and interestingly enough, a number of the people who show
'
up on your... community across the corridor, study of urban design studies, one of my
professors in landscape architecture department and Bill Morrish did some...urban design and
Lars ... who is a professional landscape architect who was my advisor at one point. Not only
that but I happen to run Heritage Development at the moment—so it gives me an interesting
and unique perspective I think on what's going to come up and I'm actually looking forward
to it I think. ...make a difference and do some different things. The reason we put together
the preliminary and put it out as a PUD was, as Kate mentioned, there are a lot of concerns
staff has and that we have about the property and it seemed like a very good way to
keep ... and the staff and the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of issues have
been addressed as in the preliminary meetings that I've had, as Dave mentioned, with storm
water management. The landscape is, that we're addressing here is very narrow and also very
rolling. There's a future park corridor running down the Bluff Creek ... idea for the entire city
itself. And the future sewer line that's coming from Stone Creek running out to the future
school site. Had meetings with Kate and Diane, Dave and Charles, the City Engineer. I've
'
also been over to ... Bill Morrish and Torn —and just trying to be as much a part of this as I
possibly can so. We're coming to the ... meeting at 2:00 tomorrow and I'm pretty excited
about the process and I think we'll pass along ... With that, we do have some concerns with the
'
storm water is a real issue. That's changing as we speak in terms of drainage, Stone Creek
and new runoff that we're going to generate, park corridors and trails along it so
obviously ... So John Dietrich who represents RLK will...
'
John Dietrich: John Dietrich from RLK Associates. We are the landscape architects and civil
engineers preparing the findings for Heritage Development. I have just some clarifications
that I'd like to put to each of the I guess 23 recommendations that we have with you.
Address those. We've had a chance to discuss it We are basically in approval with the '
recommendations as they are stated. Some minor clarifications that ... Should we speak to
those now or would you like to discuss the plan first?
17
- Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' Scott: I guess I think probably what we'd like to do is have you go through the
recommendations and then do your clarifications so we can understand what your position is
and so forth.
John Dietrich: Thank you. I'm on page 15 of the staff report ... The first one, the applicant
' incorporate design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed plan that are being
initiated in the upcoming month. Yes, we definitely want to include those. We just want it
to be clear that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in this corridor. Open
space, land use. The access needs. The need for development of the residential property so
that they all have to be tied in so we are a quality park and open space and have..individuals
' come down and use that space. Secondly is timing. We are interested in moving forward
with a final PUD and then into a preliminary platting procedure so that we can look at an
opportunity for development on this site this coming year, 1994. So we are looking to do,
trying to move along quickly but also incorporating the concerns. Number 2, the proposed
ponding area in the southern portion should be relocated to lessen impact on wetlands,
wooded areas and natural features. If indeed the ponding area that we have ... talked about
' with Heritage and ... is going to be an issue, we feel that there's an opportunity to have a pre-
treatment of the storm water between the wetlands to the east and the lots up the roadway
that would necessitate some ... and possibly the roadway and possibly some negotiation
between the square footages of all the lots but we feel that would be a doable process and we
would definitely adhere to the pre - treatment of any storm water... wetland areas. Number 3,
that's a yes. We will definitely be working with Frank Svoboda and Associates for wetland
' delineation. Number 4, attempt to retain the natural topographic features. Again, we will be
looking closer at the grading plan and design and in concert with these ... trunk line, sanitary
sewer and watermain to this site, we want to try and have an equal balance for good
engineering and good site design for all parties involved. Number 5. Pretreatment of the
storm water. Basically we go back to comment number 2. The City has suggested removing
Lots 50, 51, and 52 and building a storm water retention pond for the pretreatment area. We
' feel we can modify the location of that pretreatment area so that we will not lose 3 lots
outright for pretreatment. That is again a ... modification that would have to be. Number 6.
Wetland 15 -15 -1 should remain in it's current condition. If in fact it does remain in that
condition and you would like to have us work with the city as to potentially looking at that as
some unique housing sites on the edge of that pond area where they would have a much
higher tree count within the lots. So if it's not going to be for ponding, there should be
' another use that is estimated to stay exactly like it is. It would have to be some type of
credits...
' Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. Is that the wetland that is drained by a
culvert?
F
L
W .
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Hempel: That's correct. I
Ledvina: Okay. So are, do you have any specific proposals as it relates to that? Do you
need to take that culvert out or is that what you're thinking or modify that? Resize it or.
John Dietrich: This is the ponding area that we have a specific, we had anticipated utilizing
as a storm water pretreatment before it would flow into the wetland. Currently there's a
creek and in the creek ... site from the Timberwood Estates area. We would propose that that
would be in it's current location. That with a street crossing.
Ledvina: Okay.
John Dietrich: Did I answer ur question?
'
Y
Ledvina: Well.
Hempel: One of the issues I guess that staff had before was this, this is the location of the ,
wetland that's currently being drained through an existing culvert that goes underneath the
railroad tracks in this location here. Based on the surface water management plan, we did
propose—the use of this wetland but as the storm water quantity ... as of today right now. A
lot of the Stone Creek development as well as the southerly... drain through a ravine down to
the wetland to this location here and...It is our belief that somewhere in this area here, this
flat area with the trees ... for water quality improvements is adjusted in this point. So we feel '
there's probably a location here where a pretreatment pond can be developed prior to a storm
sewer to go in prior to discharging into the wetland... continue the drainage patterns of the
neighborhood. That's something we want to be looking at here when we get the grading
plans and so forth.
Ledvina: Thank you. I
John Dietrich: Item number 7. The SWMP report, the storm water quality /quantity fees and
trunk storm sewer charges as appropriate. Yes we will be looking to provide that on site and
the credit that comes with that report and providing that service. That would be great. We
also are concerned about what those fees are and that report is in it's final draft form so we
have not had an opportunity to actually see the report. Number 8, sanitary, trunk sanitary ,
sewer lines to be used as both lateral and trunk. We intend to work with the city and have
those within the public right -of -ways of the site so that we have an opportunity to maintain
the creek corridor in it's natural state which we think both parties will benefit from. Number '
9. The north /south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to the future
east/west frontage road. Between Galpin and Audubon Road. We fully intend that that
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
connection would be critical to servicing this site and as that roadway is developed, this one
would also be extended. That outlot is part of the Chanhassen Corporate Center PUD concept
plan submission which was submitted I believe 2 weeks ago to the city. Number 10,
curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics. We will work with the city and try to
come in with as quality of a plan as possible with the understanding that it is a long narrow,
highly topographical site so we're trying to balance a number of issues at this time. Number
11, to make the north/south roadway the major traffic flow. Yes, we will modify that.
Number 12, detailed construction drawings and specifications. Yes, we will submit to that.
13, final construction drawings. Absolutely. 14, the applicant will be required to enter into a
development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security. We assume
that will be based on the standard criteria that has been used on other platting procedures for
securing the escrow. We will submit that. Trail easements connecting the interior of the
development to the Bluff Creek, absolutely. 16, the applicant shall investigate the use of
private driveways to serve up to four lots. We will look at that issue to try and minimize the
amount of right -of -way for individual lots if we have the opportunity to do so. Number 17,
north/south street should provide a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway to match the
typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. Provided the sidewalk that is being proposed
does connect into another sidewalk, we would agree to this condition. Our concern is that it
ends at our property line and goes nowhere else, then we should not be required to put it in.
A tree survey, number 18. Yes, we will take care of that. Number 19. We will look at
setbacks of variances to accommodate the siting and maintain that ... Number 20, 21 and 22.
Yes we will submit all of those approvals. And 23 addresses the issue of the DNR letter by
Mr. Richter to Kate Aanenson. Although we're concerned with the classification of this as a
protected tributary, it is the distance of 300 feet from the creek center line or bluff that it has
the shoreland overlay district provide to it which requires 20,000 square foot of...lot area. We
would ask that you look at a combination of lot areas would have an average of 20,000
square feet across the development in order to make this entire site work with the strong site
constraints and...
Scott: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Can I have a motion to open the
public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Those who would like to speak, please come forward. State your name and address.
Tahir Khan: I am Tahir Khan and I live in Timberwood Estates. I read over the details on
drainage and I want to go on record stating that it is a drainage that is occurring from my
20
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
which is 2040 Renaissance Court. Which if you could put a ma '
property Y P up. This is the lot
and there's natural drainage to the pond here that's not shown but it drains up and goes, the
water drains east and not towards the creek but it goes east, straight across and drains into the '
creek that runs north and south. The way I see this platted out it's going to be running right
through the back yard until it hits the road. And I'm wondering if. '
Farmakes: Excuse me dust a minute. I saw you move the pencil back and forth to the east
and west. North I believe is facing, so which way does it drain, east or west or north and '
south?
Generous: It drains from west to east. '
Scott: Towards Bluff Creek.
Generous: Yes. To the wetland. '
Tahir Khan: It's a natural area. It just happens to be draining right from this corner. It goes '
right to the creek and I'm wondering if there's any provisions that you have thought of so
they don't end up with a ... pond where the water has no place to go except ... go south.
Hempel: Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to address that at this time if you'd like. Down here is
Renaissance Court. This is the lot that, he lives on right here. This drainage ravine that goes
right through here is the one that carries the runoff from west to east. To the Timberwood '
Estates down to Bluff Creek, which is down here in this area. We will be requiring that this
drainageway be left open with the appropriate sized drainage culvert similar to what's in to...
Estates up here. We will maintain that flow through there. Will not be compounding... '
Tahir Khan: On the one you had up where the current drainage is occurring towards, there's
a slight depression on the top northwest corner and it serves two homes. One is my house '
and the one north of my house. And the natural flow of the ground as it is, where that
drainage occurs, goes right through the property to the east. And unless there is some
grading that could occur so as to divert, there's also a power line that runs north and south. '
So unless from that top northeast corner there's a new ditch section be done north and south,
for any house that goes ... is left not only it's own back yard but also cause flooding in the ,
northeast corner of my house and the southeast corner of the Johnson home.
Hempel: Once we get a formal grading plan we'll be reviewing that to make sure that the '
neighborhood drainage patterns are compatible. That we're not breeding any kind of ponding
onto the properties outside of the plat. It's part of our review process.
21
I I I
C
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Tahir Khan: This side of the concept where they show the street layout and the lot lines.
Hempel: We don't have a grading plan at this time or a utilities layout so when that step
during the preliminary plat approval process is what they supply in the piecemeal information.
This will address that further.
Farmakes: Which lots would we be talking about here in relationship to the comment?
Hempel: It'd be up along this corridor here. It would be the east lot line of the plat. These
back yards of the Timberwood development in here.
Scott: Which lot numbers?
Farmakes: So we're not talking about 4, 3, 55 or 54?
Hempel: I would say you're looking at Lots 4 thru 12 in this area. Address the back yard
drainage.
John Dietrich: It appears that it might be running through the proposed Lot 7?
Scott: Right.
John Dietrich: We will take a closer look at that and it may necessitate a pipe out to that
side or a definite swale or some type of drain file along the property line...
Tahir Khan: Also for the record, if your architects care to go and see it right now ... that pond
is about 50 feet in diameter. And it has not gone over the slight hump before it starts to
drain so it's collecting right now between my property and the property north of me and I
think as the spring thaw progresses, it eventually will top itself off and start heading across
the, start draining eastward now.
John Dietrich: Would there be a problem to drain that all the time without having the water.
Tahir Khan: We would prefer, looking from our point of view, to have it drain all the time
because there is some very mature oak trees that momentarily do get submerged. Then once
in a while when the plow used to plow the cornfield, it would leave ridges. 6 inches to 8
inches worth of ridges and that would be like a dam. And eventually the ridge would break
and the flow would be very rapid across the cornfield so preferably it would be, if there's a
road going by and it can be graded so that the lots and the road are lower, by only even a
foot, then that water would probably drain normally into the sewer anyways. That's all I
22
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
have, thank you.
Colleen Dockendorf: Hi. Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood Ridge. Is that the exact area '
we're talking about where the sewer stub will go in?
Hempel: The sewer stub for servicing the future Timberwood Estates, we're looking at this '
corridor through here. It would be the lowest portion.
Colleen Dockendorf: As with all conceptual approvals there's, it's hard to give comments '
when it's not final but my other concern is the time line that you guys are trying to meet and
are we putting the cart before the horse ... Bluff Creek corridor done this summer. I'm not '
sure if all ... and if we give conceptual approval at this point, are we forcing ourselves to a
time line that we don't want to be subject to.
Tahir Khan: I have one more point. I read about the stub also for the sewer. If it has to run '
into the Timberwood Estates, I would personally oppose to having it run next to the creek or
the drainage creek because it's very heavily wooded and it meanders back and forth '
sufficiently through my property as well as properties through the west of my property. And
it would require a lot of trees going down. The sewer line would have to go across. Now
there is a drainage and utility easement on the northern edge of my property that takes a
straight shot towards Galpin Boulevard. If the trunk has to go and get stubbed in between the
creek and the existing easement, I would recommend the existing easement because the
existing easement also is part of this pond that I'm describing and consequently there's not as '
many trees. And also access, like I said, straight to Galpin but I would be opposed to having
my property detreed ... in order to facilitate the stub going in.
Hempel: We'll be looking at that in greater detail in the upcoming preliminary plat submittal
in determining the best alternative to extending sewer, sanitary sewer in the future for
Timberwood Estates. Where the creek runs in the lowest portion of the Timberwood area '
though it's typically, well there's ... to extend sanitary sewer so you can service the entire
development through a gravity system ... and no need for an additional lift station and so forth
but we can certainly review that in greater detail in the upcoming month here so. '
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the general public? Okay, could I have
a motion to close the public hearing please? '
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and '
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
23
�
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: I'll make it short and sweet. First of all, Bob I want to thank you for doing such
an extensive job of bringing up so many issues. It's just a very good report and thanks. I'm
having a hard time, actually Colleen kind of took the words out of my mouth. Saying yeah
to this conceptual plan because I think conceptual plan sets the tone of the development and I
think the tone of this development, and it says in our staff report on page 2. The intent of the
development is to create a project that is compatible with the natural elements of the area,
specifically Bluff Creek, the ravine, the wooded area and the existing topography. And it
goes on. And because of that I would like to wait until the shirette is done on the Bluff
Creek corridor and those design components the developer can work with. Until that is done,
because I think it will set the tone of this development. And I would like to wait and I could
not give conceptual approval right now until that Bluff Creek shirette is done and see how the
developer takes those design components, guidelines, and works with them in this
development. Because it is the whole part of this development. The Bluff Creek and the
natural topography.
Scott: Okay, good. Jeff.
Farmakes: A couple of general comments. I get uncomfortable when a high percentage or
we start hovering close to 40 -50% of substandard in a PUD. I don't know why that is but it
seems to be a target that we shoot for. There always seems to be that there's a bunch of little
lots and then there's some tree top lots that make up the rest that have extensive square
footage but what it does is it equalizes out the other lot. But the problem I have with that is
that a lot of that square footage that we're using isn't buildable under normal development
process and I keep on bringing this up. This is a difficult area to develop, granted and I
don't see a problem with the PUD. I see a problem with some disseparate lots, in particular
where some of these drainage patterns are where there's deep ravines. Very limiting as to
where those pads are going to go and the lot looks much more spacious than it truly is. And
without seeing building pads on this particular review, it makes it kind of dangerous from the
concept standpoint to give approval to this type of thing. Or really review the design of it.
Drainage issue is a concern in particular with this type of property and it's essentially that's
what this is. It's a big drainage field and I would be concerned about that if I was an
adjacent property owner or potential owner of this property. And I think it's sort of the cart
before the horse here in this development, I'd agree with Nancy. And I would vote to deny it
at this point.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I have a couple of questions for Dave. On condition number 9. Talking about the
north/south street shall be extended through that outlot to connect to a future east/west
frontage road within three years of the final plat. I'm concerned about the connective you
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
know road scenario and what would be the time line for the east/west frontage road going in?
This is part of that south frontage road construction. What are we looking at there?
Hempel: That's correct. The east/west frontage road will serve the school site and eventually
multiple residential sites there east of the school site. The city project will be commencing
this spring with the site grading of the school. Utilities later on in the summer with the street
construction in the fall. Completion date of I believe July of 1995.
Ledvina: Okay. Doesn't it make sense to just, so this, the roads in this subdivision would
actually be done this year, is that what we're shooting for? Is that what the developer is
shooting for?
Hempel: I don't want to speak for the developer but my interpretation of their plan here is to
show you the entire development with anticipation of doing a phased approach. The outlot to
the north is actually under a different PUD development and it will be coming in in the next
couple of weeks. Chan Corporate Center I believe it's called. I don't know, maybe the
developer can address their phasing ... of this parcel. Maybe they are proceeding to develop 56
lots.
John Dobbs: It would depend on a number of issues ... the one that's the most glaring and that
is this trunk sewer coming up. Whether that would follow the road line or not. If it does
follow along the proposed alignment that we have, there would be some drainage that would
have to be ... in preparation for the sewer ... Then our intention after that, after the sewer would
go in, if there's enough time this year ... put in streets as far as weather...
Ledvina: Okay. Well I'm concerned about a 3 year time period. The issue as I see it relates
to safety and maybe 3 years is too long ... to delay that connection so I guess I wouldn't
change that recommendation specifically but I would request that staff review that
recommendation again to see what might be appropriate as it relates to that time frame. It
may be an as soon as possible type of thing, you know would be appropriate. On item
number 17, Dave. Would you clarify the situation with the sidewalks there? How do you
see that?
Hempel: Certainly. Currently Stone Creek, the Hans Hagen development to the southwest of
this site, is proposing to extend Stone Creek Drive to where it exists today in the first phase
of Stone Creek. There currently is a sidewalk I believe on the south side of Stone Creek
Drive... which will terminate at the westerly property line of the subdivision. Their street,
typical section does include the construction of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk as well so it
would be completing the sidewalk.
25
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' Ledvina: Okay so that, so we wouldn't have a situation where we would have a sidewalk
ending? It would connect to the existing sidewalk? Or the proposed sidewalk in that area.
Hempel: That's correct in that location and eventually there is a sidewalk/trail in harmony
with each of those...
' Ledvina: Okay. And getting, stepping back a little bit on this whole development. I guess
generally I support, certainly support the development of this site using the PUD approach.
' We certainly do have a very sensitive area that we're dealing with. We have the extreme
topography on the northern part of this site and then also the ravine on the southern part of
the site. I would want to see those elements treated very carefully and to that extent I would
' strongly support staff's recommendation that the private driveways be looked at in great
detail. Not necessarily to reduce the right -of -way but in an effort to minimize the disruption
to the topography. Also, it may make sense to increase the distance or just to eliminate
grading from those very steep areas and just pull the extent of the development back on the
northern part of the site to essentially leave those areas alone. And similarly to the, as it
' relates to the ravine on the southern end, I understand of course you have to cross that but as
it relates to minimizing and perhaps even eliminating the grading associated with the
preparation of pads, building pads in that area. I think the street alignment certainly can be
' changed to maybe provide a little more curvilinear aspect as the staff has pointed out. And I
think things can be perhaps readjusted in terms of the locations of the private, potentially
private drives to be sensitive to the topography. Let's see. I guess I would support this
conceptual approach. I think even though we don't have the guidelines for the Bluff Creek
corridor, I think that the developer is certainly aware that that is the reason that we're, that
we want to evaluate this or the reason it should be evaluated using the PUD approach. And
' although things may not be specific as it relates to the standards, I think staff has probably a
pretty good idea of some of the things that can be done at this point to minimize the impact
on the corridor. To provide the access that we want to. The open space, etc so I think we're
' pretty far away from making decisions that really dictate how the corridor will be impacted at
this point so I think that knowing what our goal is going to be I think is enough. And I think
we can move this forward from this point. So again I would support this proposal with the
' staff changes. I've got some other conditions that I would add to address some of the
neighborhood concerns.
' Farmakes: Could I ask a question? How do you feel about so many undersized lots? And
adjacent to the property.
' Ledvina: Well, we're looking at it as a PUD so some of the things that we can do for the
developer relate to the undersized lots and the setbacks. The roadway setbacks in exchange
for added sensitivity as it relates to the area surrounding the corridor. But specifically I don't
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 '
,
know if 24 lots averaging 13,500 square feet, you know that might be acceptable.
g g q Y P
Farmakes: My point on that though is if you look at Lot 37 and you see Lot 38, those lots
'
are a third of those lots are buildable.
Ledvina: Right. I understand your point. Exactly.
'
Farmakes: So if you count those and the ones that are already substandard, if you get to 40-
50 %. 60 %. 70 %. At what point does the trade off for sensitivity become, really go beyond
'
the zone of single family and start encroaching elsewhere. Just because it's a wetland
doesn't, you couldn't build a traditional development on it.
'
Ledvina: Right. Well if it's a wetland it can't be included in the total, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: There's a compliance table in the plat that shows the lots without the
'
wetland ... We check out the net and the gross...
'
Ledvina: You might think it's not buildable because of the topography but you know they
have some rights in terms of being able to grade that area. We don't want them to.
'
Farmakes: Well no, but what I'm saying, even as total square foot. Not usable square foot
but if you look at total. 21 of the 56 lots are undersized. That's, if you look at the usable, I
did count the usable square foot because we don't really have a criteria for that but it seems
'
like we get all these somewhere around 50% being undersized. And when they go in
adjacent to properties that are large lot, how are we dealing with a transition of development.
'
Ledvina: That's always an issue, certainly. And some of the things that actually, now I
wasn't able to walk that whole line there. I didn't want to because I'd be trespassing, or at
least I thought I would be. But I see a lot of topographic changes there that, and there's a lot
'
of vegetation there along that line. There is a, is there a power easement right on that line?
Aanenson: Yes.
t
Ledvina: I think that also provides a buffer. And I don't know. You raise a very valid point
and there's a red flag that goes up when I see the backs of 5 lots, more than that, 6 lots
'
abutting one lot. So that's always a concern. But I think the gains that can be made relative
to the creek may outweigh that given the specifics for the site.
'
Farmakes: So you think that more homes, I'm not here to beat up on your logic but you
think that more homes, when you're saying the site benefits. Does the site benefit from more
'
27
,
.' Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
I homes or higher density within the site or?
' Ledvina: Well, coming in here and just grading it all out, you could put more lots in here.
Farmakes: But there's a substantial amount of it you couldn't grade out.
' Ledvina: Right, and the wetlands you can't.
' Farmakes: In other words, the houses are lined up in a row so at least a substantial amount
of them are sort of lined up in a linear line so I.
' Ledvina: I would change that certainly.
Farmakes: But there's not a lot of room to play around there before you get into the wetland.
Ledvina: No you're right. I will say this. I n' know y g y don't o that whatever number of lots, 59
' lots. I don't know. Maybe that probably seems like there's too many lots on the
development. So if, I don't know what the total number of lots will be but when you do start
changing the road alignments and taking a close look at areas, very steep contoured areas that
' you don't want to grade, maybe the number of lots will go down. I'm hoping it will.
Mancino: Then conceptually, would you go with more clustering of the houses and have
' more open area where we wouldn't do, there wouldn't be as much grading and keeping the
ravine, etc?
' Ledvina: Well they suggested looking at the use of private drives with homes serviced off of
private drives. Several. 3 -4 homes. That's a technique. Clustering houses. I guess that's
kind of a clustering type of thing ... I'm done.
' Farmakes: I just had a question.
1
Ledvina: Those are my comments.
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: Very good comments. I guess my issue comes down to giving conceptual approval
now versus deferring you know until the corridor or watershed plan is done contrasted with
the fact that the recommendation number 1 says they incorporate design components from
that. Is it 6 and 1, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure. In terms of everything may
change or have to change because of that. So that point seems to suggest that I can live with
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 ''
Mancino: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this
conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the
applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. '
They're being initiated next month and when those get incorporated, that we see a new
conceptual plan and I would also like to add that many of the issues that are in this
recommendation that Bob has put together for us, be incorporated into the conceptual plan
29
'
the recommendation but I agree with, I do agree with Jeff's concerns and also other
g
comments that have been made and so the question is, do you move it forward by deferring
or do you move it forward by approving subject to. And that's where my confusion comes
into the process.
Ledvina: Well we will see this again. I mean this is a conceptual.
'
Nutting: Yeah, so I guess from that standpoint I would tend to lean to say that subject to the
various comments that we could approve then the conceptual plan and move it forward. But
,
there's a lot of issues that are going to have to be resolved before it gets past that next stage.
I think Jeff's comments are appropriate.
Scott: Good, thank you. I was kind of surprised when we had two residents come up. One
who lived or has a lot adjacent to this property and they didn't say anything about the density
or the number of lots and so forth. I agree with Jeff on the kind of the false sense that we
'
get when we see very large average lot sizes but that's dictated primarily because of non -
usable space and so it kind of gives us a false sense. This to me looks extremely dense. I
don't support moving this forward. I guess even though it's from a conceptual standpoint, I
still think that we're saying something stronger than perhaps we are when I say I approve this
conceptually. I can't approve this conceptually. I think it's too dense. I think there are,
'
when I think about the work that we did on Al Klingelhutz's multi - family. We had a
situation where we had some large lot people with 15,000 square foot lots abutting, I think
there were seven 15,000 square foot lots abutting a fellow who I think had a 2 or 3 acre
'
parcel. The developer came back and reduced the density but basically worked with the
adjacent residents. Also too, is it topographic or topographic? I'll say topographically and
when I take a look at the northern extension of the street and I think Matt had a good point
about maybe doing something different. I see from Lot 22, I see an elevation of 910 going
up within, to Lot 19. We've got a 40 foot change in elevation and obviously that probably
exceeds our, was it 6 %? 7 %? So I think we're talking about some horrendous grading. I
'
can't pass this on right now. I think there's such a, there's a large component here where we
have to be sensitive to Bluff Creek and so I would recommend denying this conceptual plan.
I don't have any further comments. Do we need more discussion or would someone like to
'
make a motion?
Mancino: I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of this
conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development subject to the
applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. '
They're being initiated next month and when those get incorporated, that we see a new
conceptual plan and I would also like to add that many of the issues that are in this
recommendation that Bob has put together for us, be incorporated into the conceptual plan
29
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
too.
Scott: Is there a second please?
Farmakes: I'll second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the applicant's request. Is there any
discussion?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial
of this conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create single family development
subject to the applicant incorporating design components from the proposed Bluff Creek
Watershed Plan and that the applicant incorporate the conditions outlined by the staff
report into their conceptual plan. All voted in favor, except Ron Nutting and Matt
Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Scott: By a vote of 3 to 2 the applicant's request is denied and this goes to City Council on
the 28th?
' Generous: The April Ilth.
Scott: April 11th? Okay. And what will be accomplished relative to the, at least the design
t or the shirette or some input. Will there be some facts that will be available or some city
guidance... time to rework their plan prior to presentation to the City Council?
Aanenson: I don't think so. We didn't intend for that ... What we'll try to do now is ... so they
know what to do when they come back the next round. They may not get 56 units. They
may get less than that but we have to resolve all these issues... that's fine but obviously we
' hadn't intended for this shirette or this focus group to meet before they go to Council. But
we certainly will communicate with them and with you so you know what the issues are
when it comes back.
' Scott: Yeah, that's what I'm kind of thinking. If there's probably going to be some new
information available, okay.
' Ledvina: Joe?
' Scott: Yeah.
Ledvina: I'd like to clarify two points that were discussed in addition to the things in the
30
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
staff report. I would like to see the staff evaluate the drainage patterns within the
Timberwood Estates neighborhood to make sure that the patterns of drainage are maintained
and specifically in the vicinity of Lots 4 thru 12. And I'd also like to add that the
consideration for the sanitary sewer stub for Timberwood Estates, the siting of that stub
minimize topography disruption and tree loss to the extent possible.
Scott: Do you guys want to take a 5 minute break before we do the next?
(The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT
COMPUTER AIDED GRAPHICS OR MODELS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS AND
SUBDIVISIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vemelle Clayton
425 Santa Fe Circle
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Mancino: Is this a public hearing?
Scott: It will be. I don't know, I just have one comment. In the section 1(4) where you
talked, item number (m) where you talk about computer generated photocomposite images or
artistic renderings. I personally would like to see computer generated photocomposite images
only and the reason, I was quite struck by the pedestrian bridge. I mean that, I think as a
Planning Commission we were able to make some decisions based upon some fairly minute
differences I think in the pylon size and different materials and then also they were able to do
a time progression and say well here's what it's going to look like now and here's what it's
going to look like in x number of years. From an artistic rendering standpoint, I don't see
that as being as valuable. So I would rather not have both. The question does come in
though, do you have an idea of what this costs somebody to do a photocomposite versus an
artistic rendering?
Generous: I don't know the artistic rendering. Now they gave me some examples of the
31
f
1
C
f
. Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
costs for the photocompositioning ... $3,000.00 for the standard site. The example he used was
the high bridge in St. Paul which was a $35 million to $55 million project depending on their
' final design. And they said that the final cost was, I believe it was $35,000.00 or $40,000.00.
Scott: Yeah, because that's my concern is if somebody's got a quarter of a million dollars in
' a lot and then they're going to be building a $20.00 a square foot building, I'm just trying to
figure out if there's a way to give us the scale without having.
Aanenson: As you recall when we looked at the hotel project, what they did, I'm sorry.
What they did is take actual photographs and tried to superimpose it. I think that helped you
to give a bit of perspective from Highway 5 and West 78th.
' Scott: That worked really well.
Aanenson: Right, and I think that's what we're talking about in this artistic rendering.
Scott: So it's a photographic process but not just somebody drawing something?
Aanenson: Right.
' Ledvina: Question. When you say artistic rendering, do you mean a computer artistic
rendering or is that what you're requiring though? I mean can somebody sketch it out? Is
that adequate?
Scott: That, at least in my mind, that doesn't really give an appropriate view or doesn't give
me a good idea.
Mancino: Well they can change scale all the time. When it's a hand drawn artistic
rendering, a lot of times they'll get the building and the trees out of scale you know with
each other or they'll give a funny perspective that isn't real realistic and I think that that's the
problem with the. Yeah, they do whatever they want to do.
Scott: I like the idea of if there's some existing, I mean I don't expect someone to spend
$3,000.00 on something but I think it is important, if they can take an existing photograph
' and use that as the scale point and then do something with it. So I don't know what the
language is. Maybe photocomposite image. I mean that to me says it's a couple of
photographs stuck together. It doesn't have to be anything extremely expensive, unless
someone that has a very large scale development feels they can invest the money but anyway.
Farmakes: You're going to drive the cost up of demanding a building that's not built as a
32
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
hotocom osite where it becomes an illustration if the scan in an elevation drawing
'
P P Y g
and then drop in some color and then show the signage. They can do that like a photo shop ,
or something relatively inexpensively. If they have to render the building in 3 dimensional
form, it gets to be fairly expensive.
Scott: What's the middle ground that gives us what we want but doesn't cost? ,
Generous: Well it depends on the resolution you ask for too. John was telling me that if you I
go with a flat shaving, it's less expensive than going to the photo realistic images.
Farmakes: The memory capabilities get very high and then you get into work station type '
breaks where you have a much more sophisticated computer to hold a lot of memory from an
illustration. Some of them might be 100 megabytes just for an illustration. So it's a lot of
more expensive equipment.
Scott: What language do we want?
Farmakes: Well aren't we interpreting, Kate can you go over what the benefit again is
supposed to be here? If we're looking at photocomposites, we're looking at the relationship
of the building to existing buildings? We're looking at possible signage or landscaping. That '
sort of thing. When we're looking at signage or whatever, I think that certainly working from
a working elevation and seeing the maximum development is sufficient. I don't know if it
needs to be a photo rendering or that cost when you're dealing with PUD's where there's
substantial amount of money and it's a large scale development. This is fairly small
percentage.
Mancino: Yeah, I was going to say. It might have to do with cost of the project and having '
staff make that decision because we couldn't have visualized the bridge. I mean if somebody
explained it in verbiage, here's the difference between the you know, the bridge. We couldn't
visualize that and the picture obviously.
Aanenson: I think that kind of language, what Bob has put in there, the appropriate levels of
resolution for the visualization. I mean that's something we're going to have to develop you
know as we go through this process. Say that this project demands this level of detail and
this project ... but we want to have something in there where if we do need it to make a good
decision, that we can ask for it.
Farmakes: So the criteria then would be that if you thought it was necessary, then you could
ask the developer for that expense?
33
i
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: Right. Because we don't have it in there right now. Right now we can't ask for
it.
Mancino: That makes sense. That makes sense.
Ledvina: So the terminology, appropriate levels of resolution, that's really your discretion.
Aanenson: Well if it comes to you, you could say we can't tell the details and we're going
to have...
Generous: Also you should know that once they have the first one done, the next levels are
less expensive. He was giving me like $800.00 for a different angle or picture...
' Ledvina: A question. Now does this apply to all subdivisions that will come through?
Aanenson: No, that's what I'm saying. We'll have them to do in subdivisions and sign
' plans.
Ledvina: But what do we have in front of us? Is this.
' Aanenson: You're amending two sections of the code.
Generous: 18 -40 is the subdivision section and 20 -109 is the site plan review.
Ledvina: So you said subdivisions so this is for subdivisions, just like what we, like a
residential subdivision.
Aanenson: Or maybe along Highway 5 ... some instances where you may want to...
Ledvina: I see that it's a very powerful tool for analysis and I really like what we did with
' the pedestrian bridge. I couldn't agree with you more on that but for a residential
subdivision, I'm having a hard time seeing the application.
Mancino: What about an apartment building?
Aanenson: You don't have to have it This is something if you feel like it's necessary,
you've got the language in there. Again, we're going to have to on a case by case basis, and
it may be something that ... a multi - family project.
Generous: He also said they could do like a video so if you have a subdivision it would be
like coming into the entrance on the street. Going up the street seeing the various housing
types placed in there.
34
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Farmakes: A walk thru program. ,
Generous: Yeah, exactly. ,
Mancino: So it gives us the option. '
Aanenson: What it does is gives you the option.
Scott: The option to ask for it. Okay. ,
Ledvina: I guess I would like to see that clarified. I don't think that... appropriate level of '
resolution. Another question though. Section 20 -109. That's the site plan review?
Aanenson: Yes. I
Ledvina: Okay. I think it's certainly appropriate there. I don't know, I think it has a lot of
application there but I'm not so sure, certain as it relates to subdivisions, how important it I
might be.
Nutting: But they're also not making it mandatory. I
Ledvina: Yeah. How can we change that language to make that clearer? Appropriate levels
of resolution.
Scott: Appropriate levels of resolution as determined by City planning staff.
Ledvina: Can you throw that in there?
Scott: So it's clear as to who makes that? I
Aanenson: Well this is part of a laundry list that you look at. When you come in for an
application to build a subdivision, we give you a checklist, these are the things you need to
provide. And so these fall into that checklist. Okay so if someone was coming in and we'd
say well this obviously, you probably wouldn't need this on this subdivision or take a site
plan, this may or may not. It's one of those things you could check...
Nutting: You want to say it's a requirement but you have the flexibility to say you don't
need it.
Generous: Yeah, you're too small and we don't really... '
35
n
r
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: Or when it comes to you and ... and you feel like you need it, then we've got a
method to say, we're not going to approve it until we get a visualization.
Scott: Yeah but I wouldn't see us getting to that point until the development is going ahead
but then we're getting down to maybe some of the finer details. Okay. Good. Are we done
with the discussion with the staff? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would
like to speak on behalf of the public hearing? Yes. Please identify yourself.
Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vernelle Clayton and I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle ... just have some
questions. We haven't had much of a chance to look at the report and we had some of the
same questions that you did. Particularly did it really mean that you could have a rendering
such as we used on the motel, and apparently it does. And I think that's important. The
process is not incredibly well developed yet for computer visualization. It's sort of going
through the process, as I understand. The computers and calculators and everything... probably
in a couple years everybody will have it but right now not too many people do. And I have,
ever since I worked in State government, always felt that it was somewhat an uncomfortable
position for any unit of government to find themselves in to be requiring something that is
only provided by a few. And so one of the questions that we had was, would like to have
answered too I guess before we know whether we're even concerned about this is, how many
people really can provide this service? And that is kind of ... and that then, let me go back.
How many people can provide it at the level that you want? There are a lot of people that
can provide a certain amount of ... go in and assume that you're requiring a whole lot. So I
guess that would be something that should be clarified so there aren't any misunderstandings.
The other thing is that sometimes I think what we did with the motel, when we took a picture
and then Tim Howell, as you may recall, painted in what we proposed to build, could be done
by somebody like Tim Howell but the others couldn't. I like to be able to see folks like Tim
Howell be able to ... business of being an architect, one of the few remaining businesses where
you don't have to be a...if you don't want to. So I mean ... but basically we had a couple
questions like that. When would it be applied? There are some small projects that really
couldn't afford it. And whatever you ask these folks to do, they pass it on to the price of the
home or the price of the product that's sold in the commercial buildings so I think you need
to think about that. I believe that's all I had. But maybe if you have the answers to those
questions and you know that-that's fine but we didn't have the answers and we were
wondering, since we find ourselves appearing before you from time to time with various
projects but.
Scott: Maybe the intent, especially on the, like an addition to an existing structure. In my
mind that's just fine. We just want to see how is it going to look. How's it going to play
out and so forth. From a signage standpoint, an elevation drawing, you know 2 dimensional
36
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
i fine but I think when we start getting into something like, and I don't know if you had a ,
s g g g Y
chance to see the computer generated piece that they did for the pedestrian bridge but we
were asked to make some decisions that I don't think we really could have made.
Vemelle Clayton: I think that's perfectly reasonable and that's a very ambitious project—so ,
it's a very small percentage of the total cost.
Scott: So that's why we want to make sure that it's optional and it's only used in case of a '
tie or if you will, but just something where we feel we need it or city staff needs it. But
we're not going to be requiring this willy nilly and I think that was one of our concerns. It's
like what does this stuff cost? But no, your points are well taken. '
Vernelle Clayton: I would suggest you might want to ... obviously it's got to be not the
planning staff but the City Planner. I've never read anything from the staff on their own... ,
reports signed off by the planners. I think it would be the city planner that would be making
the decisions. I would think she'd be more comfortable with some sort of a guideline... and I
would think you would be in the future, should you hire some ... if she decides to go to South '
America or something. It's easy to be comfortable with the people you know and their
judgment. You're comfortable and so am I with Kate's judgment but this is a law on the
books that doesn't always, I've been around here a whole lot longer than probably any of you '
and some of the things that we all thought we just a given you know 5 or 10 years ago,
people don't even remember now. And some of the things that happened 20 years ago, it's
so easy to have a good idea while you're doing it and then another group of people interprets
it differently.
Scott: I think someone at the planner level would be appropriate. I don't know if we need to '
have the Planning Director but you know city, when you talk about planning staff, I'm not
thinking of an administrative individual. I'm thinking of someone who's business it is to plan
and to make decisions of that thing so we need to specify planner level I and II on up or '
whatever but we're talking about somebody who's in the business of planning can make that
decision. Are there any more comments from the public for the public hearing? May I have,
seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? '
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ,
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Matt. I
Ledvina: Well, I have a few questions. I guess one other thing that I wanted to know was,
it says and provide a perspective. This is in the middle of the paragraph. And provide a
37
i
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' perspective of the proposed development from abutting properties. Outlying properties? All
sides? At the property line?
Aanenson: We do that right now when we ask for perspectives. We make the judgment call
on what we feel is the most important... maybe on a small project, it's...maybe on one project
' it's so sensitive that you need a perspective from all. So really.
Ledvina: Sure. Okay, so it's your discretion on that. That's fine but it's just, it begs to
question I guess.
Aanenson: Maybe there's a...
Ledvina: Sure, I'm okay with that.
Aanenson: There's just so many variables with each project. I guess I don't want to tie it
down and then leave something out.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I think things do change with time and I can see 5 years from now
people looking at this ordinance saying geez, that was in the Stone Age. The Jurassic type of
' things... But we have to make a stab at it and I guess, as I said before, it is a powerful tool
and I would support the passage of this ordinance.
' Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: I guess I also would support it. I guess the issue is coming down to discretion to
' apply on a case by case basis to the level that's appropriate and I guess the only question I
have is, the language as it sits, appropriate levels of resolution for the visualization shall be
used from flat shading etc. Does that leave appropriate open to interpretation from the
' applicant side as opposed to planning side? And do you want to say as determined by so my
comment is, if we want to refine that. Otherwise I'm in favor of approving this.
' Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I'm in support of approving this as is. The only words I would change is artistic
' renderings and I don't know what we came up with. And I don't know what the right jargon
is. Jeff, what was the right, you came up with something.
Farmakes: I don't remember what it is.
Mancino: Did someone write it down?
W.
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Generous: I wrote P
hotocom osite but I don't know. I
P
Mancino: Well I think that Joe you said just leave out artistic renderings and say '
photocomposite images.
Farmakes: Because the photocomposite that's where you took two photos together into a ,
single image. A rendering, a 3 dimensional rendering is just that. It's a rendering. A
drawing in CAD where you do. ,
Mancino: Oh a computer generated rendering.
Farmakes: Correct. Which is far more elaborate and far more costly. You can use photo, '
canned photo or library photo textures like for instance—have a lot of different kinds of brick.
And you can design a dimensional drawing and the computer will apply it dimensionally. So '
again it's the amount of, that's far more elaborate and time consuming and expensive than
scanning an elevation drawing and dropping in some color in the background.
Scott: Or taking a photograph of the existing area and then superimposing either a line
drawing or a photograph.
Farmakes: That's easy. '
Scott: Yeah, and that may be appropriate in those instances. I
Farmakes: That's an easy issue. Two scans and you put them right together. That's easy.
Mancino: Well then let's leave it up to the discretion of. '
Ledvina: I'm comfortable with artistic rendering... '
Mancino: Then we'll leave artistic rendering.
Ledvina: ...but again, I'm sensitive to. '
Mancino: Cost. '
Ledvina: Well cost, yeah. And narrowing the realm of possibility and also the vendors that ,
can provide the service. I think that's important.
39
�
i
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: Then let's leave both in and so either are an option. Whatever is appropriate for
the particular site.
Scott: As determined by.
Farmakes: And I would add the verbiage of provide an undistorted perspective of the
proposed development.
Mancino: Where would you put that?
Farmakes: Well you were talking about distortion of perspective which can be used to create
a distortion of scale so the purpose of comparison, you would want like a normal lens. A
view of the surrounding area.
' Ledvina: Depict the undistorted visual impact. Whatever.
r,i
Farmakes: My comments on this are that the city staff should have discretion because the
negotiation and development takes place prior to us seeing the staff report and that's therein
where the preparation of presentation takes place. Before we see it. For us to set up a
criteria, again you get into the problem of trying to come up with a criteria that is applicable
to every type of development. And as we've seen with the sign ordinance type situation, it's
a very complicated process and I would go with the judgment of city staff on this and not
hinder the, as to individuals changing on city staff, I don't think that that makes any
difference. An ordinance is an ordinance and whoever is in the city staff at the time I believe
will, it's their job to project whatever the city ordinances are through their interpretation so
time marches on and I'm sure we may get other people here but I wouldn't expect that they
would go outside the realm of what the current ordinance is and if it needs to be changed, it
will be changed. We do it all the time as our needs arise.
Aanenson: Or as technology changes.
Mancino: Jeff, you're limiting it just to staff. I mean if it got to City Council and somebody
on City Council said you know, you guys I really think we should see a photo image
composite, I mean.
Aanenson: It's not limited to staff. All we're saying is this is a requirement. If we don't
require it, what we're saying is it could be a requirement. Okay what we've done by not,
everybody... when a developer comes in they'll say, can you hand us a checklist to see what
we need to do. We can say, we probably don't think that this project requires... so all it is is
it's on the checklist. Is it appropriate? You may be required to put them on notice...
40
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Scott: Okay. Well I support that code amendment and can I have a motion please? '
Mancino: I move that, oh I'm going to need your help on this. I move that we approve the '
code amendment to require computer generated images for subdivisions and site plans as
shown in the attached amendment, attachment. Is that what I want to say? With the addition
of provide, you're wanting to provide an undistorted perspective. '
Farmakes: Provides an undistorted perspective of the proposed development. ,
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Is there a second? '
Nutting: Second. I
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the code amendment as amended. Is
there any discussion? I
Mancino moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Code Amendment for Computer Generated Images for Subdivisions and Site Plans '
amended to include a statement that it provides an undistorted perspective of the
proposed development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Does this have a life after us now?
Aanenson: It goes to Council. I
LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND '
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. ,
Scott: Any questions for staff or comments? ,
Mancino: A couple questions. Kate, where are you, and I'm sorry if I missed it when you
gave the report and you talked about the conservation easement. You're going to take that '
directly to the City Council?
Aanenson: That would be part of the conditions. You had asked that's one of the things we
41
1
Ll
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
did ... it's not in here but you had asked that that condition be added as one of the conditions
of the plat ... I didn't list it as a condition but it will be a condition of their plat.
Mancino: And have you talked with the applicant about where that conservation easement
would be? I mean what area takes in the conservation easement? Because I am very
concerned about the shoreline of significant trees on the south side that are on the south of
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Minnewashta and those are the ones that, and there may be
other areas too.
Aanenson: The conservation easement should run along the backs of all these plus these are
the other significant trees in this area right through here on the backs of these lots.
Mancino: Can you also tell me why we have a variance for Lot 8, and it was because of tree
preservation? And why is that?
Aanenson: Well, as you recall. They moved this lot line here. There's some significant
trees up in this area here if you overlay the two.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: Flat lot, this goes back to the flat lot issue. Flag lots for some reason has 20 yard
side yard setback from the 30 foot setback once you get inside that. You're supposed to take
the setback line from here. So that would push the house even further down.
Mancino: Oh okay. I see what you mean. Okay, thank you. And you are suggesting that
additional trees be placed in 13 lots where only 1 tree per lot is proposed. They should be on
lots, do you have any number? Because I can see the mitigation of 173 trees that were taken
down prior to this development. Is there a guideline number that maybe we wish to come up
with?
Aanenson: Again, I'll leave it up to the applicant to make a proposal to you.
Mancino: Okay. So I'll ask the applicant. Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: In our current ordinance for shoreline, part of that is the screening process
involved as well as other eco reasons. And that just deals with trees but also shrubbery and
so on or the natural state of the shoreline. When we're talking about trees, are we also
dealing with some of the screening elements that are involved with the natural shoreline.
Other than the ones that say trees of a certain caliper. How is that restored or cleared?
1%
f
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Aanenson: As I indicated earlier, anything under the ordinary high water mark—jurisdiction. '
With this plat, with the tree conservation easement, they shouldn't be below the building, the
rear building line. That's where all the significant trees are. There shouldn't be any reason ,
to have ... It should be snow fenced and.
Ledvina: But they can't go in and prune the underbrush or something? 1
Farmakes: So from the 60 or what is it, 75 feet setback from the shoreline, the underbrush
and screening there, I know you're allowed to clear out, I think the DNR allows you to clear '
out an access or a channel and I know that we've had some arguments in the past about what
you're allowed to clear out. Or how much of a path. Whether it's lot line to lot line or
whether or not it's a 50 feet situation. I'm just wondering if there have been violations of
that there in your opinion from the existing property? Or the way the existing property was
prior to the application. '
Aanenson: Well as I indicated what the ordinance says is ... DNR shoreline regulations... What
we felt was being removed at the time was less than the 6 inch caliper. Obviously you show '
clear cutting and that was a concern. At that time the...
Farmakes: So if dogwood was cleared out, we're not going to see dogwood replaced. I
Aanenson: No, I think what we're asking is that they would be replaced with significant
species. Something that ... overstory trees. Not necessarily ornamental but... I
Scott: Dave, clarify on the stop work order. You signed it.
Hempel: That was placed by the building inspector at that time on the site... activities being
done. '
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Mancino: Question about the landscape plan. Was this done by a professional landscape
architect?
Aanenson: You'll have to ask the applicant for his credentials.
Scott: Okay, we'll wait for the applicant's report. Any other questions or comments? Okay. ,
Would the applicant or their representative wish to address the Council? Planning
Commission. '
43
i
.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Kenneth Durr: My name is Kenneth Durr ... and I think it's appropriate that I address some of
the issues and the accusations that have been leveled that have not been very accurate... I've
been a building contractor for 40 years. This was our 40th year. I've had—working with me
for over 30 years who was Chief Building Inspector for the City of Minnetonka... In talking to
him today, I asked him during his experience with the city of Minnetonka, or previous to that
with an architectural firm, Johnson..., whether he had any knowledge of anything permits
necessary to cut trees on property. He said no. He had never come across that, nor have I in
40 years. With one exception, we are a builder in the Bear Path, Jack Nickolson...in Eden
Prairie there has a tree ... and we're well aware of it and it was presented to us and we were
made aware of it prior to our doing any work there. But in 40 years we've worked in many,
many municipalities. There have been areas where we've had 40 acre sites. Where we have
cleared out, I mean clear cut 3 acre parcels out of the center so a large ... and there's never
been the faintest thought in our mind that permits may be required for that. And we've never
experienced that. So when we approached this site, at the time that I put these parcels
together, I was not certain whether I was going to build there or sell the property. I had
offers on 2 parcels that I first owned. I felt it was necessary to purchase the third because
there were lot line discrepancies. Had I not purchased the third piece of the last 30 feet of
the parcel that I did own so I went to a lot of expense and legal work to get that cleared up
to purchase that. At that time juncture, just as I was purchasing that, there were other people
interested to purchase at the same time I was. And my intent in going in there was not
necessarily at that point going into it as a development but merely to clean the land up so that
it was presentable. Now what we did there, I had a firm come in who's done work for us in
the past. They do work for a number of the golf courses in town. Interlachen Country Club
being one of them and I trust their judgment as to trees. What is diseased, what is wind
damaged, what is good, what is not. And they just go ahead and do their work for us. They
do work for municipalities. They do our work on all of our sites because we're very
concerned about preserving trees. We're not there to rape the land. We are preservist in
what we do. It's only to our advantage to preserve and maintain a good tree cover but it isn't
in the best interest to leave wind damaged trees, diseased trees, and that type of thing. Those
are the types that were taken off that site. Had we the intent of just going in there and clear
cutting with the intent of just coming in behind that and pushing roads in, it's very obvious
looking at the property, we would have taken trees down on the hill where we wish to put the
road. That was not done. You'll notice the trees that are there are all of the specimen trees.
Big umbrellas on the trees. The trees that were taken were mainly trees below 6 inches in
diameter, 4 feet up from the base. In looking at the site... something major is 8 inches or 10
inches but 4 feet up is entirely different than what a stump shows. It's 4 feet off the ground,
6 inch diameter. Those are the trees that were taken together with wind damaged trees that
were lodged, I have a couple pictures that show just a tangled mess in part of this property.
There are old buildings in there that my insurance company said I had to get out of there
because they were an attractant nuisance to children. So we removed those at the same time.
..
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Hauled them off the property. But it was a tangled mess. Wind damaged trees. Trees
leaning into other trees. We just didn't simply cut some of those down, we cabled up and
down the sections and pulled them away from the good trees we were saving. It's very
obvious in looking at that site you see good trees. The diseased, the wind damaged, the ones
that were blown over and a few trees, when I talked with my tree people, there were some
box elders growing under large oaks. Large maples that were stretching for light, growing
almost horizontally, coming down touching the ground and then growing up again. Those
were the trees, they were larger than 6 inches and those were taken. Growing under the
umbrella of the specimen trees but they were junk. And he knew they were junk. So that's
the extent. Now we have a house on that property. Better than a year ago the Fire Marshal
wanted to use the house and burn it. I objected to it because I said I don't think you can do
it and preserve trees. The trees around the house that we wish to preserve. You can check
with him and verify this. Now subsequent to that, he has asked me again about it and one of
your people even called me ... looking at the property and assuring me, yes. We can burn this
if we don't damage the tree there. So we have to have absolute certainty that this does not
occur because we had a house burn down, it was badly vandalized on the center property.
And in that they assured us that they would not damage trees. And a specimen maple was
burned to the ground. The fire got away and burned the tree down. I didn't want this to
occur again. That house cost me $7,000.00 to have it demolished and hauled out. If I'm
looking at the very economics of this thing, I'd say go ahead. Burn the thing down. The heck
with the trees because then I'd save $7,000.00. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in
preserving the good trees and forget the $7,000.00. I'd rather spend $7,000.00. Take the
house down and haul it out rather than risk the burning trees. So these accusations that have
come to you people are entirely false. The number of trees may be accurate. It's a 20 acre
site. There may be 173 trees that were taken down. But we're not talking big trees. We're
talking small trees that were 6 inches and less unless they were wind damaged, the tops out
of them or leaning into other trees or a few exceptions of box elders that were growing
horizontally ... I think the question was raised about whether or not a professional landscaper
would be used in this. Very definitely yes. I talked to Herb Baldwin who's a very well
recognized name in landscaping. I'm not sure that Herb will be doing all of this. He's done
some preliminary work. Kevin Koehnen who is a landscape architect. He does a lot of work
for us on upper bracket projects that we do. That involve large acreages, up in the Medina -
Orono area, that are very extensive landscape projects. He has looked at the project and has
given me some ideas of what to do. I've been put in touch with one of the best people in the
area as far as the ponds. As far as what you do with them. How you go about aerating
them. We are planning to do both aeration and ... getting air pumped into the bottom of these
so that they aerate well. He knows what can be done without using chemicals in the ponds to
control the growth. And the suggested depths of the ponds, we've gone into things that I feel
are very important to the total concept of the project. And so we are not going into it on a
shoe string and just trying to get the maximum that we can out of this property. We're
45
FJ
r
7
C
i
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
hopefully doing an excellent job and that is our goal. We're noted for excellence in what we
do and I really resent some of the accusations that have been leveled from, particularly one
individual. We are noted in all the communities we build in, as being highly reputable and
extremely careful of ecology and tend to spend more money than most in landscaping
projects, which will certainly be the case here. What is shown is such an extreme minimal to
what we will be doing and we will definitely be using professional people in it. We want this
to be a very high test, high class neighborhood. Street of Dreams people are very interested
in seeing this developed. Seeing what we've done in the past and we will put everything that
we have into it to make it an established appearing community from day one. Are there any
other questions that you might have of me that I can hopefully clarify or?
Mancino: Well I just have a question. I guess it's Mr. Dun for you and also for Kate.
When we ask for a landscape plans to look at and to say yeah or nay to, and they're not final
and they're not even, I don't know if this is what you, I don't know what kind of plan you'd
call this. Is it a preliminary plan or something?
' Kenneth Dun: Very preliminary because I really don't, what I like to do is formulate that
together with a landscape architect and really work on it to get it to the very best that we can
do. We are searching for very mature trees right at the moment and we wish to put a lot of
' evergreens in because they have an impact both winter and summer. And we're searching for
large stuff.
' Mancino: Okay. So what I see here on the north side that parallels Highway 5 is 6 foot and
they're all 6 foot and you're just in a row and there's no creativity. There's no landscape
design to them on the other side of the fence. Is that what we're going to see?
Kenneth Durr: No.
J
Mancino: Okay.
Kenneth Dun: This is.
Mancino: So I figure an engineer did this.
Kenneth Durr: I'm sorry.
Mancino: Did an engineer do this? Okay. Okay. Well I mean I would add to it.
Rick Sathre: We were trying to represent the numbers. Minimum numbers.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 11
Rick Sathre: That's on the berm. ,
Kenneth Dun: On the berm, oh I see. And Kate was saying about 50 trees.
47
Mancino: I just wanted to know what I'm seeing.
Kenneth Durr: If there are a number of trees that are called out, and I think there was.
'
Something like, was it 27 or somewhere else I heard 50.
Aanenson: Well the ordinance states that you have to place 1 per lot. You also the
'
requirement that you're obligated to do is the streetscape. What we're saying is that, and
maybe some additional trees are required and those lots that really don't have any other
mature trees on the lots. And this is preliminary. We wanted to see, they did show the tree
'
removal plan. I think that's what the Planning Commission was concerned. They showed...
individual lots as far as a count idea. Normally when we do see that, I think that's kind of...
If you go back to normal preliminary plat, we don't always see that quite as formulated.
That's something you ask us to follow up on.
Mancino: But I thought that we usually see more of the streetscape in it's final form, don't
'
we?
Aanenson: No. Not necessarily ... I think there was concern because of the trees removed and
'
that's kind of been the focus but now that we've got something under preliminary...
Mancino: I remember like Rottlund and stuff was from a landscape architect. It was Todd
'
Irvine from Arteka did that so we see it at the point where a landscape architect gets
involved. Or we have.
'
Aanenson: It depends. On the ... plat, on Lundgren's, there was a condition that the
landscaping, the streetscape be in ... so it's not always the case. ...I thought you picked up that
'
we were treating this one differently but sometimes we do and sometimes we don't.
Normally you give us direction. I think again this one came out of the fact that trees were
removed and we wanted to get an idea as to how they were going to...
'
Mancino: Okay. Because I just have the problem is that I wouldn't approve this if this were
the landscape plan. I mean it just doesn't meet it for me so.
'
Kenneth Dun: Well again, I may be repeating myself but if there was, as Rick was saying,
like 26 but I think.
,
Rick Sathre: That's on the berm. ,
Kenneth Dun: On the berm, oh I see. And Kate was saying about 50 trees.
47
u
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: Right, in total. Yeah that includes the streetscape and the additional landscaping
between the neighbor adjacent to Lots 8 and 9 ... and that's the minimum required. That would
be the concern.
Kenneth Duff: Well you can be assured we'll...the minimum and if you want a commitment
to that, you could name a number of 100 and I'd be very comfortable with that.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you sir. Well this is not a
public hearing so I guess we can move on to comments. Nancy. Give me an issue.
Mancino: Not right now...
Scott: Pardon me.
Mancino: Not right now but I will.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I think the sole purpose of us going forward with the plat, the preliminary plat.
One of the strong conditions that and concerns we all had was regarding seeing what the
landscaping would be, as Nancy mentioned, and also the tree removal. I see that we do have
a plan which does show the lot layout and the trees. I guess there's x's here. Those
represent removal as it relates to the road. Trees removed for the road but I don't see what
would be anticipated for tree loss with the building pads. I think that's.
Aanenson: That was the Attachment #1...
' Ledvina: So there is a discussion, okay. I'll take that back.
Aanenson: ...site grading and the road ... And then the additional 21 and...
Mancino: It would be much easier to tell if we did some sort of an overlay for us. I mean
' it's very hard to tell which, you know for us to see which trees per lot actually are going to
be removed.
' Ledvina: I guess just to wrap up my comments, I would feel more comfortable seeing a
more detailed landscaping plan. I think that's really what we were looking for when we
' discussed this last time...
48
f
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Scott: Oka y, Jeff. I
Farmakes: I have no further comments other than what's been mentioned. I guess maybe 1
one thing. I hope the city staff still uses some latitude in looking at the issue of the
compliance. Whether they were factual or non factual. Use your own discretion with that. '
If there's a violation in the ordinance, treat it as such. Ignorance of the law, as I'm told, is
no excuse and that ordinance I know has been on the books for a fair amount of time so the
intent is to protect what tree cover is left in Chanhassen and I think it's a good ordinance '
with good intent. It's not to say that the applicant premeditatedly clear cut the issue but if
there was damage done, particularly in the area adjacent to the shoreline, the effort and the
intent is to restore the vegetation so there isn't a lawn down to the lake as you see in some '
houses that were developed 40 years ago. With the preference, the intent now has been for a
fair amount of years, is not to do that. Not to allow that type of development and the State
encourages that and ordinances in the city have been there for quite a while so that's it. '
Mancino: I'd like to add on to what Jeff just said and I think that a lot of times developers
say well we've saved the big trees. We've saved the significant, the big ones and they take '
out all the saplings underneath, which is our next generation of trees for our children and our
grandchildren. When those big trees go, we have another, we have trees there that are ready
to come up and little trees become big trees. So it is, we are trying to also preserve some of '
those, most of the saplings underneath big trees also. That they are as important to us and a
part of the ecosystem too. So to go in and clear cut, like they did on Lake Susan Hills a little
bit, under the bigger trees, is not what we want either. That is part of the woodland area and '
should remain so. And are for the next generation because those big trees will come down
and we have saplings there that are ready to take over. So I think it's as important to keep
that under canopy coverage also. '
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: : I guess I just haven't ... in terms of we approved pending the submission of the I
landscaping plan before the plat proceeds to City Council. Is this, I was trying to understand
from Kate's comments, is this the normal procedure? Is this on a case by case basis whether '
we get full landscaping plans at this point versus some point in time down the road. I'm just
trying to understand the. '
Mancino: We don't see it again.
Nutting: Okay. So if we approve things at this point it's, we will ever see... '
Aanenson: Are you asking me? ,
49 '
i
i Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
I Nutting: Yes.
t Aanenson: Normally, as a part of the process, you articulate to the applicant what you want
to see. You don't also see maybe landscaping in preliminary plats. Some plats yes, you see
it. It's your discretion. What they show is that they met the minimum intent of the
' ordinance... we'd recommend additional trees, we've left that open. We certainly feel that
needs to be evolved by a landscape architect and that's something that normally we follow up
on just like the other conditions that we put in the report.
J
n
L
Nutting: So is Nancy, you would not be comfortable with even establishing parameters
then... or additional guidelines to the.
Mancino: Well I don't want to tell them how to do their landscaping. I want them to come
back with a good professionally done landscaping proposal.
Attorney for Applicant: Would it...
Scott: Let me see. I have to ask a procedural question here. Since this isn't a public hearing
and the applicant had their, made their presentation and now we're doing our discussion, I
know how to handle this from a public hearing standpoint but procedurally, go ahead.
Attorney for Applicant: My question is just procedural too and that is, since both the
Planning Commission and the City Council get to look at this project again, in the final plat
approval process.
Aanenson: It only goes to Council for final. So the City Council will see it for preliminary
plat and then as it gets approved in whatever phases, they'll come back for final plat. And
again, a lot of times the Council doesn't see the final landscaping plan until they come back.
They wait until they get approval and then they come back and do the final design. The
engineering of the streets and a lot of those kind of issues. So the Council doesn't always
see the final landscaping plan until even final plat. There's a lot of final issues. I mean that's
up to your call if you want to see it again.
Attorney for Applicant: I'm wondering whether that, the next look that you'd like to have
can be done in the final approval process.
Aanenson: Then the final would come back to them before it goes back?
Attorney for Applicant: Exactly.
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: Okay.
Kenneth Durr: What we really want to do is spend considerable time in that area. For the
planning. It's not something that I just care to rush in just for the sake of coming with a
plan. We want to come with a plan that is really special. We want to do this up really
exceptionally well. And I don't think that can be done just in a very quick, you know few
days or a week. It's something that I think is going to be a process that we do and we refine
it and we come with something that I think you're going to find that is going to be
exceptional. We're not going to spare dollars on this. It's going to be done very, very well.
And if it means that it goes to the Council. If it has to have a special approval with the
blessing of this body, that's fine because I'm not concerned at all about what our final result
is going to be for submission. But I would hate like everything just to spend dollars and
quickly do something that is only mediocre. I want to be special and whatever it takes to do
that, we can proceed and come back with something that is special, that's what we're going
to do.
Scott: Well I guess that's the, Kate.
Ledvina: Can we see it again after Council then? Is that possible?
Aanenson: Sure.
Ledvina: Okay, so that would be a recommendation.
Aanenson: Before it goes for final plat that you have a chance to review the plan.
Ledvina: Well, the landscaping plan.
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: That certainly works.
Scott: So if I could have a motion. That's one of the luxuries of chairing this body is you
don't have to make any motions.
Mancino: Let's see. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the final landscape
plan after the City Council has seen it? Kate, would you help me.
Aanenson: Before final plat approval is given by the City Council.
51
r
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: There you go. And you know that it, and Mr. Durr has said this, but that it be
done by a landscape architecture, landscape professional and that there will be some
mitigation as Kate has said. Well I want to add the staff's recommendations also 1, 2 and 3.
Can I have a second?
' Ledvina: I'll second it.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Mancino's motion. Is
there any discussion? No discussion.
' Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the landscaping and tree removal plan as shown on the landscaping plan dated
March 10, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of 4 conifers be . laced on Lots 1 -4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway.
Y
2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They
shall be placed on Lots 6 -16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 2.
3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit.
4. The final landscaping plan, prepared by a professional landscape architect, be
brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to final plat approval
by the City Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Scott: Kate timing wise, we're looking at a couple of months?
Aanenson: It's going to Council on the 28th.
Scott: 28th? Whatever happens after that. Okay.
Ledvina: You anticipate this development to occur this year? Is that correct? You anticipate
that this development's going to occur this year? Okay.
1 Scott: Okay. Thank you very much.
F1
t
52
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS.
Scott: For the record, item number 6 under old business, appointment of Planning
Commissioners to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Commissioner Mancino has
volunteered for that position for 6 months and then at that point in time we'll review what ,
our more long term solution is.
Ledvina: Generously done so, yes. I'd recommend Commissioner Mancino for giving her '
time and effort.
Mancino: Thank you. '
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: I
Ledvina: I have a question in the Minutes. It related to when the, page 63. This gets back
to the vote on the Wendy's site plan. But maybe you guys can correct me if I'm wrong but I
didn't think that Ladd voted for my motion. I thought he voted against it. He's not here to
say yes or no but.
Farmakes: Which motion were you talking about?
Scott: The motion recommending approval?
Ledvina: My motion recommending approval of the site plan for the Wendy's.
Mancino: That was the first vote?
Scott: The first vote was to approve, which did not pass.
Mancino: He did not vote for that one.
Ledvina: He did not. Okay.
Y
Mancino: I didn't think so either.
Ledvina: It shows in the minutes that he did vote for in favor so I don't know. Do you
recall Bob? Can we suspend these or wait?
C
J
I
n
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Yeah, we don't have to approve them. Because they don't get distributed until they're
approved anyway.
Ledvina: Not that we need to reproduce this whole thing. I don't want to see this again in
my next packet.
Scott: Maybe an addendum or something.
Ledvina: Maybe save a tree but just that page 63. Just to clarify where Ladd sat on it. I
don't want to make a big deal out of it but seeing that he's not here, I want to, and there is
some.
Mancino: Yeah because I thought he voted the second time. I know he voted against it.
Ledvina: I know he voted against the second motion but I thought he voted against both
motions and I kind of understand why he did that. And I don't want to make a big deal out
of it but he's not here to answer my question and there's some disagreement as to what
actually transpired. So let's revisit that next time if we can.
Scott: But if you look on, about a 15 second comment. If you take a look at, on page 66
where the motion came up to recommend denial of the site plan.
Ledvina: He did, yes.
Scott: Yeah, so whatever.
Ledvina: It does make sense that he would go with the converse but I don't think that
automatically...
Scott: Well we will, the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of March 2, 1994
have not been approved and we'll review that particular item at our next meeting and perhaps
Nann, if you could give Commissioner Conrad a call and see if he can search his memory
banks on that one and we'll correct it.
Ledvina: Well I don't know that we need to do that ... I read an article on motions passing
that weren't supposed to pass. When people were actually put to the test and asked how they
voted on it, it came out different than what actually went into the record. I guess I'm
sensitive to that. Not that it made a difference in this case but still, I think we should be
sensitive to make sure that what actually transpired is accurate. Before it goes into the
record, yes.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Farmakes: Let the record reflect that that's how I voted.
Scott: Okay. Good.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Scott: That was Nancy, do you have a City Council update for us?
Generous: Not me anyway.
Scott: Well Nancy, you were at the.
Mancino: No I wasn't. Was I supposed to?
Farmakes: We were upstairs at the time. I heard though that they denied the liquor license.
Generous: Well they didn't, they tabled it I believe.
Mancino: To come up with some way to write it in as...
Farmakes: It was an issue of concern of zone. Sort of like the problem we had with the
sign.
Generous: I wasn't there so I'm not sure. Kate was there...
Scott: Yeah they dropped the Wendy's or tabled the Wendy's item. Any other City Council
update related things?
OPEN DISCUSSION:
DISCUSS THE DRAFT OF THE TREE ORDINANCE.
Scott: Commissioner Mancino, would you like to begin that discussion?
Mancino: No. I think I'll let Bob begin it. You wrote the report.
Bob Generous gave a staff report on this item.
Scott: Can I just ask you a question. Commissioner Mancino raised a good point about the
understory trees that are the next generation. From a standpoint of determining what has
55
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
changed, because I think after a development is put in, obviously do we, are we thinking of
using aerials to then determine what's really happened and what about the understory?
Generous: The idea was that if we were able to put in these conservation, tree protection
areas, you're not going to have clearing in there. So you're going to maintain those
understory trees. And specifically ones of, for instance as part of the subdivision, just like we
do wetlands and they have to put the stake in and say this is a wetland conservation
easement. Well on the site they're going to put in another stake that says, this is a tree
preservation area so that the future property owners, the homeowners know that as part of the
platting process this part of their property was designated as a preserve.
Scott: Okay. Who's, because we've had some issues I think also with the Lake Susan Hills
9th Addition about things happening after the fact. That obviously were not totally above
board relative to tree removal. How do we keep an eye on this thing? Who's responsibility
is it going to be to make sure that these easements are protected? Do we just ... but I
specifically mean, do we have, we've had an intern.
Generous: Yeah, and we'll have it again. I don't know, maybe long term if this works out
the city will say, yeah. It's, the benefit to having an urban forester on staff is ... cost effective.
Mancino: I would like to put that as part of the record. That I think we do need an urban
forester. Maybe a shared one with another community that helps in making sure that this
ordinance is followed because you do need a dedicated person to do that and to know what
they're talking about when they go in and check on sites. So for the record I'd like to add
that.
Scott: And what about a funding mechanism too? I mean if you're going to basically have
tree police. I mean we have a wetland police person now. I think we need a tree police
person and obviously that has to be funded. Has a mechanism been discussed that based
upon the aerial view and the percentage of coverage, etc, etc that, and I don't know whether
it's how you would calculate this but we need to fund this person and that would be my
suggestion is we need the protection but obviously based upon the way our city operates, is
that we haven't raised taxes for a number of years, and I don't know where we can divert
funds from to do this but I think along with this we need to, we obviously we came up with
the dollars for Diane and that was a very good move.
Generous: That was the SWMP.
Scott: SWMP. Well maybe what we're looking at here is, I don't know if it's a tree tax but
you know what I'm saying. I think that's appropriate because we do need to have somebody
56
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 f
' has to '
and if you're going to have ordinances, somebody police it. p
Mancino: And most cities do. ,
Farmakes: Actually if you do come up with a tree tax, you may find more trees coming '
down than being preserved.
Scott: Yeah but so you know, we have parkland dedication. We've got park fees. We've ,
got, you know what I mean. We'll tax cigarettes in the city. But you know what my intent
is.
Farmakes: $3.00 a pack.
Scott: There you go. I'm sure Todd would be willing... anyway. Any more. I
Ledvina: I have a comment. This is a general comment. I said it when we talked about the
wetland issue and you just mentioned it. We're going to put a sign, this is a tree preserve on '
every lot. I understand that that's good for people to know what it is but on the other hand,
we've got so many signs in our lives, I'm against signs. You're trying to make this a
wilderness area and you walk through and oh, there's a sign that tells me this is a wilderness '
area. That I'm in a preserve. I'm against that concept of putting this sign in the trees.
Mancino: Well it has to be made out of wood. '
Ledvina: Yeah, whatever. It's the same thing with the wetland. I understand that there's
that education thing but it detracts from the thing that you're trying to accomplish in the first
place, in my opinion.
Scott: Well how many times, right in this very room have we had very intelligent '
professionals come up and say, well the realtor never told me that I couldn't put a dock out
in front of my house. And the realtor never told me blah, blah, blah. You know and that's ,
one, I mean I hate to see that we have people who are fairly, you know they're not.
Ledvina: I've heard it too. I
Scott: Yeah and I'm just thinking, well you know, I didn't know I couldn't cut these trees
down so I mean. I
Farmakes: Well we just had a developer who's been developing for 40 years. One comment
on that. The DNR, according to their survey, says that Chanhassen's denuded the forest '
57 1
t
i Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' cover about 95 %. That's only about 5% in Chanhassen actually has forest cover in it So
percentage wise you're dealing with a small amount and the majority of that is in ravine areas
' or non - farmed or minimal farm area.
Scott: Non - buildable too.
' Farmakes: Well it's also environmentally sensitive because most of Chanhassen is a
drainfield for an ancient glacial river over here and some of the soil, if you follow it down to
' the bluff is, if you dumped a drink on the corner, you might wash out somebody's house
down the way. It's pretty unstable and I agree that maybe you can go overboard with micro
managing an issue of putting a sign in front of every tree but it seems that the same theory
' though of overall massing is that's what we're looking at for the Bluff Creek area. For
sensitive areas of stands left including animal cover. The animals follow up these ravine
stands of trees up to lakes area. I know last year I saw a beaver coming up. Beavers coming
' up out of the river area following back up into an urban wildlife scene and we have a herd of
deer over on Lake Lucy that live in the forest behind Prince's area. It'd be nice to see some
eco corridors left of those kind of stands because I think what will happen is a lot of that's
' going to disappear as you get clear cutting underneath these canopies. That a lot of that's
going to be destroyed and the question is, how much of it that's left is...
' Ledvina: Sure, I understand. But you know you're saying that only 5% is left.
Farmakes: I'm not, the DNR is.
Ledvina: Well okay, the DNR says. Then people are going to be naturally conscious of that
and they're going to be concerned about maintaining that.
Farmakes: But actually, given the choice, where would you put your house? In the trees or
' out in the farmland?
Ledvina: Well we're not talking about when the thing is being built. The bulldozer can back
' over the sign and that would happen. We're talking about maintaining a sign in perpetuity
for whatever, on each lot. Every 90 feet there's a sign that says, you're in a tree preserve.
' Farmakes: Well you might have a point on the issues in regards to signage or notification.
Maybe it's some other.
I Mancino: Is it in every back yard for the wetland?
Ledvina: Yeah I think it is. It's every lot. Monumentation, every lot.
58
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Generous: I was envisioning this skinny little sign on a pole. ,
Ledvina: Well maybe so but it detracts from, in my opinion from the way I experience trees, ,
nature, I don't like to see a sign when I'm walking and communing with Mother Nature. It
just, that's backwards for me.
Mancino: What's another solution to make sure that, you know. ,
Ledvina: Education. I mean if you have a newsletter that says. t
Mancino: Or homeowners association doing something about it. '
Ledvina: Right. I don't know. And even the issues of maintaining the signs after 5 -10 years
are going to be down anyway. '
Mancino: Well again, that could be a homeowners association, maintenance thing.
Ledvina: Well it's another thing that needs to be done. I don't know. I just, I wish it was '
simpler. Maybe it can't be simpler.
Scott: Well what can we do, I know if there's a conservation easement, some language gets '
incorporated in the deed to the lot?
Generous: It shows up on the plat.
Scott: That becomes a record. But then again I keep coming back to, you know it's amazing ,
people who invest a hundred, you know let's face it. Coming into this community you're
going to be plopping down $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 just about anywhere and it just, it
baffles me to see you know people come in and they've taken a lot of things for granted and '
I don't know. I don't like to see signs up all over the place either but it's almost like, you
hate to feel like you have to be protecting adults from themselves but it happens. We see it.
We see it about once a month so, I don't know if there's a better way to do it, I'm certainly '
open to it.
Ledvina: Well I guess I give people a little more credit for maybe recognizing the value of '
those things and also I think in the future we're going to see a higher level of consciousness
of that I think. I think people are going to look back at what we're doing today with this
ordinance 5 years from now and it's going to be a very major issue and they're going to, and
it's going to be in people's consciousness. They're not going to need a sign.
59
I
r
L
� 1 1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: I think that's something good to think about. I mean let's kind of go through it
and maybe we can come up with a different solution.
Ledvina: I don't know. I don't like the idea of signs.
Farmakes: Did it get in the wetland ordinance too?
Generous: That's what I took, I modeled this one after the wetland ordinance.
Mancino: I want to stop for just a second and tell you all just a little bit about the make -up
of the Tree Board right now and the people who drafted this ordinance so that you have an
idea of who was on the Board and what they bring to it. Just because as you're looking over
this I think it will add a little bit. Obviously Bob and Paul Krauss, has been on it too. Tim
Erhart who has been on the Planning Commission and has 100 acres of wooded land. And I
also have 23 acres and most of it's wooded so we want to get people who are on it that, at
some point maybe down the road will develop and will this work for these forested areas. I
mean my God, what are you telling me? I can't build on here and you know, how many
trees am I allowed to take down on my property and so we wanted people who had some
property that will be developed so that they could give their opinions. We also have Mike
Zens who's from the Arboretum who is an arborist and Kevin Norby who is a professional
landscape architect. So we started out with, who else?
Generous: There were two people that I never met. Charlie.
Mancino: Charlie with public works who does a lot of maintenance of the city trees. And
Larry who used to be on the Park and Recreation was the Chairperson. Started out with us
and hasn't been there for the last 2 or 3 months. But it was quite a good group so I just
thought I'd tell you that up front.
Ledvina: Well no, and I believe that the ordinance has gone through some iterations in it and
we have discussed a lot of different issues and a lot of this stuff has been hammered out and
it's, there's a lot of thought in here and I like most of what's, well I like it all except for the
sign. I guess that's my only comment. The signage.
Scott: Is there any more discussion?
Mancino: Yeah, I have a comment and that is, it's a tree preservation ordinance and the one
thing that we're not preserving, and I don't know if this has come up in some of the Planning
Commission... but I certainly had an experience earlier this week about a developer next to our
land going in and clear cutting. And it brought up to mind, and the developer clear cut and
.1
1
f
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
gave one person, one neighbor one reason and another neighbor another and one of the
reasons was, well I'm going to farm it. The other reason was, well I'm going to develop it in
3 years and I don't want the trees to get any bigger because it's going to cost more to take
them down plus the impending tree preservation ordinance. They'll be big trees and I'll have
to preserve more. And this doesn't take that into account. I mean I'm wondering if there is
some way that, and again this gets into individual rights. You know individual property
owner rights. If someone is going to take down more than 5% of their canopy coverage on
individual lots, that they need to get a permit. I mean I'm throwing this open for discussion
because you have a developer that's got land and prior to development they go in and let's
say they don't even clear cut.
Farmakes: The developer's a private land owner?
Mancino: Yeah. The developer's a private land owner and they go in and take down, I mean
8 to 10 acres were clear cut and it was, again your second generation trees. These were trees
that were 12 feet high. They were probably 3 inches but they were so thick and dense, I
mean it was a woodland. The beginning of a woodland. And went in and in a matter of 2
days took down 8 to 10 acres.
Farmakes: Totally?
Mancino: Totally. And the punitive part of it is, he or she may have to pay $1,000.00. You
know or $1,000.00 a day. And you know if I'm a developer, do it. That's cheap. Cost of
doing business. Hey, I'll do that. So we don't have anything for that here.
Farmakes: What if there was, if there was a violation of that extent that could be shown as
current, what if there's a moratorium of time that would make it unpalatable to the developer
as a private landowner to cut it? So that you wouldn't penalize a farmer or a hobby farmer
who's clear cutting some trees for firewood or getting a corridor down to a wetland or
whatever it is that they happen to be doing. It's within their prerogative as a private
landowner without the intent of developing. Not penalizing them but if I'm a developer,
that's what I'd do. I mean I'd come in before I applied for the replat and I'd cut whatever
was necessary to cut. And if I had to put in a few trees down, well I know that if
somebody's going to pay me $700,000.00 for a house, they're going to want a nice carpet of
lawn coming down to the lake. And that's a given. And once I clear that out, you might
have me put a few more trees back in there but you know, the intent is, the deed has been
done.
Scott: Maybe what we need to do here is where it says, it is therefore the purpose of this
ordinance to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal or killing of trees.
61
I
0
I I
1
t Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: Where are you?
' Scott: This is like page number 1 of the draft. Instead of saying, on construction and
development sites, I think what we need to do is include on private property, construction and
' development sites.
Ledvina: Maybe future development sites.
' Scott: Well see and anything can be a future development site.
' Farmakes: But if there's a time line where you're not allowed to replat that property.
Developers don't like to hold onto property forever because it costs them money.
' Mancino: I see, so if there's a 5 year time line.
Farmakes: If there's a time line but I don't know if that's a reasonable way of solving that
' problem. But the problem you're going to come up with politically is that you're going to
have private property owners who own 23 acres of forest or whatever, have no intention
currently of developing them and if they want to go down and chop down one of their trees,
' it's a property right of ownership. You own trees.
' Generous: Then clear cutting.
Farmakes: Yes, but I mean one person's clear cutting might be another's, they're putting in
' trails.
Mancino: Well sure. When Kate called these guys, they said oh we're just taking a downed
' shrub. Much like what we heard tonight. I mean this is just shrubs. Little stuff. Well you
know, these are trees. I mean you can call them shrubs now but these were, so the jargon
that is used can be misused.
' Farmakes: They must be using some plant food on those trees. 3 years later... some more to
cut down. It will grow that much in 3 years.
Generous: That was one of the specific questions I had on my property is on page 8 we have
the definition for woodlands. Do we need to expand that? Could we co -term, instead of...
' Mancino: I agree. So we, I would like to see the second generation of trees stay there.
Whether it's.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 f
w r if i covers half an acre or ,
Generous: And how do we t quarter acre. o q
Mancino: A woodland is a massing, can be a quarter of an acre. Half an acre. ,
Farmakes: What is the intent of the forester's input to, what is it you're trying to preserve? '
If you judge a woodland on canopy cover, you go to some forested areas of the state, it's
just a large yard wide tree with a big canopy and it's cow pasture underneath. That's not, to
me an eco, a woodland eco system. It's a landscaped farmland with some tree cover. So '
what is the intent trying to preserve? Are we just trying to preserve the big tree or are we
trying to preserve the eco system of that woodland?
Generous: In an eco system the diversity of tree sizes and big canopies and second '
generation and saplings. That's why ... the group was insistent on we put some preservation
area around it ... wouldn't go in. '
Farmakes: I'm curious to know what Mr. Erhart did. He was a proponent of how he voted
in this issue. He was a proponent of, vocalize it here, of owner's rights to tree cover. I was '
just wondering what his.
Mancino: Well he was for all this. I mean we had things that he wasn't for, we talked '
through but he figured out what percentage on his land. He wanted to make sure that we
didn't make the percentage, that you'd have to keep canopy coverage so large that you really
couldn't put a good development on it. So we figured out how much the streets would take ,
up. How much a pad would take up. How much the driveway would take up. What else did
we, what else is included?
Generous: That and the utilities. '
Mancino: And the utilities. I mean we went through. '
Generous: We actually gave a little bit more on these final percentages. ,
Mancino: Yeah, 5% to 10% extra in cases of grading, etc. So we're really in any
development is how much is ... 40% or 35 %. '
Scott: But then also too we could go with a, if we saw something like that that would
happened to be treed, we could go with a PUD and back off a little bit on the setbacks and '
street widths and that kind of stuff from a preservation and conservation easements and
custom grading and all that kind of stuff. But what do we need to put in here to restrict. It's
not so much the private landowner who is going to live there and those people would tend to I
63 1
t
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
treat it more responsibly but it's the developer who is coming in as a private citizen and then
' going through and doing what's happening up by where you live Nancy. Do we include
somehow private property? I guess that would probably, that would cover basically any land
owners in the city and is that what we want to do?
1 Mancino: Well I think Jeff's idea was pretty interesting. About the time moratorium.
Farmakes: I'm not sure that's a good idea. Don't assign my name to it.
Scott: Well someone came up with this idea.
Mancino: But I think Bob could research, I mean...
Farmakes: ...palatable where it's in their best interest to follow the ordinance rather than
trying to get around it, prior to platting the land.
Generous: Or by tree preservation (a) is there's no clear cutting of woodlands. Well we
might spread that, or to cutting down of half acre contiguous vegetation, or whatever.
Mancino: Exactly. I'd like to do a 2:1 mitigation then or something we do in wetlands if
they are caught doing it.
Farmakes: If you rely on a punitive action to make compliance on that, it has to be such that
it's really to their disadvantage to do it. And I'm not sure if circumstances like we just saw
here, and that's an alleged action. We don't have any proof that they did that and don't you
have to rely on that garnishing proof or taking the attitude and I always like it when there's
an incentive for the developer not to take the action rather than punitive actions because one,
the city has to prosecute it. Two, the city has limited resources and it's very expensive to
litigate that kind of stuff. And often when you're dealing in developments of that size, hey.
A few thousand dollars, $10,000.00, it's not that much money in the overall development of
20 some homes for a million.
Mancino: When you talk about being punitive, I think the thing that you want though is to
' have the trees back there. I mean you want to, as I said, do some sort of mitigation so that
when they do develop, they have to maybe do 2:1 replacement of what they took out.
Scott: So we're thinking from a punitive standpoint would be, if this occurs, a preliminary
plat or replatting of the property will not be allowed for 5 years or something like that?
Because that's where the money is. That's the pocketbook. It's not, it's going to cost you
$50,000.00. I think if a developer was looking at putting in homes in there, especially if
64
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
they're a builder and it's all of a sudden they do this and then now they've got to sit on the ,
property for 5 years. That's huge. That's very huge.
Mancino: Yeah I ou. of
g Y
Scott: And then they can't even sell because it doesn't matter. '
Farmakes: I don't know if that's legal. '
Scott: Oh, I don't know either.
Farmakes: I don't know if it's a legal enforceability. '
Scott: I don't know either. I
Farmakes: Because you'd have to prove intent of the individual and what's to stop the
original landowner from whacking the trees and then transferring the land to the developer? I
All in one swoop. I mean who incurred the violation?
Scott: I think it's clear that we need something, we need to protect the private property and
you're right. I mean the thing that we're trying to protect is that somebody who's a
developer owns the land. Whacks the trees. Oops. And it's development time.
Farmakes: And I'm not sure how you treat trees in a zonement where the city "the
community" sort of takes over control of that for the common good. From a private property
owner. It's kind of a, I'm not a proponent of one way or the other so I'm just bringing that '
up as something that I'm sure you've discussed and I know Tim Erhart has discussed it at
length in the past on the commission here when he was on this commission. Then if that's
where you butt up to the problem and I'm a lot more lenient in my mind to the private
property owner who, as in the past, a lot of these stands were left for access to wood for
farmers. So they had something to burn in the winter. But I'm not sure how you can enforce
or put that together so that, as I said, it's palatable to follow along. '
Scott: Well I think you know what we're trying to do and you're going to be meeting with
Roger tomorrow so why don't you use some of his expertise on this and then get back to us '
on it.
Farmakes: One thing that I'd like a provision in there that, some people were calling me and '
asking me. A dead fall, especially an ice occurrence that comes within the trees on shoreline.
Often the ice knocks over the small sized trees when you get ice shifting. The trees that are
65
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
very close into the water or unstable ground. They get knocked over and so I don't think that
there should be any, you should have to fill out a permit to clear cut that out. I shouldn't say
clear cut. To remove the dead fall for those type of trees. So I didn't know whether that was
covered in the ordinance or not but that would be a I believe an imposition.
Mancino: We get that all the time.
Generous: Page 6 on 8 I think covers that.
Mancino: I didn't even see it.
Generous: It's an existing code. We just added a few more...
Ledvina: But in terms of an ecosystem.
Generous: Removal of diseased or damaged trees is permissible.
Ledvina: The ecosystem says leave everything stand. Or leave everything fall or lie.
Farmakes: Well if it's a problem with the trees that's fallen, one it could be dangerous. And
two, the tree is dead so it's.
Ledvina: Bugs and...
Mancino: But we'd leave it because the birds love dead trees. That's where they make their
nest and I mean we don't want to pay the money to have somebody come and take it down.
Generous: Then you get back to the issue of someone bought that wooded lot and they want
the natural environment. Maybe they would...
Farmakes: I would like to see the ... to the issue of dead fall. If declared.
Scott: So where are we on this thing? Are we going to bounce it back to staff and then have
them take the recommendations in hand and come back to us at our next meeting?
Ledvina: Are we going to have a public hearing then or no?
Generous: That's if you wanted for this.
Ledvina: Are we ready for a public hearing on this?
..
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Scott: Well not today but.
Ledvina: No, no, no, but for the next time.
Scott: I don't know. I'd like to see it before I have the public hearing. What do you guys
think?
Mancino: Well, yeah I agree. We are trying to obviously get it in because of development
happens so much in the spring. We want to, I mean why have this thing come in in July.
We're going to lose.
Scott: Then let's have a public hearing at our next meeting and we'll get a chance to review
Ledvina: I bet we can do it.
Scott: Yeah, okay. Can I have a motion?
Ledvina: I don't think we need one, do we?
Mancino: No. This is just open.
Generous: No, you're just giving direction to move forward.
Scott: Groovy. Okay. Then the direction is that staff has collected comments and we'll get
another revision back to us and we'll have a public hearing the first meeting in April. Okay.
I'll quickly do the Admin Section. An interesting thing occurred at the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff
Creek Watershed District and I guess the, is it Ray Haik, the chairperson of that particular
group? Well, he's a senior person there and a tract of land that's basically at the end of the
Bluff Creek. I guess the city of Chanhassen was interested in purchasing part of it as part of
our Bluff Creek trail system, etc, etc. And one of the members of the Watershed District
negotiated a deal with a fellow who was reportedly, or actually it was assumed that he was
the actual owner of the property when in fact the property was in title to another individual.
So anyway, that's still up in the air but I thought it was rather interesting. But that's the way
it, do you have any other comments on.
Generous: Well they also negotiated a deal that was $30,000.00 more than the previous
asking price.
Scott: So anyway, that's your tax dollars at work. Anyway, any other comments, questions
before we adjourn the meeting or before I get a motion to adjourn the meeting?
M
1
L
i
F_
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Mancino: I just have a quick question. Bob, you know we saw the PUD next to
Timberwood. Are we ever get in PUD's, I mean I know that one of the things about having
a PUD. I'm sorry, I'm not very articulate. Is low cost housing or moderate, let's say
moderate income housing. Something like that as a part of the PUD. But we never see that.
What's being done?
Generous: Chan Corporate Center might have it but then do you build 140 unit apartment
building. I believe there are efforts on the part of the city to look into options for that.
Mancino: Okay.
Ledvina: Just a quick follow -up on that. I noticed with Heritage I was reading the Findings
as it relates to the PUD development and it said, you know provides affordable housing, etc.
And in the response it said, the response well, the houses or the lots will be marketed for, or
for sale or something like that. It was really kind of a weak.
' Farmakes: He used the word moderate.
Ledvina: Yeah, moderate. But I don't think that, maybe when we have that situation, maybe
we should just be realistic about it and say, this isn't applicable for this type of development.
Or something of that nature as opposed to trying to gloss it over. I don't know. That's just a
comment.
r
I
Farmakes: It would seem to me, this is really late to be discussing this but it would seem to
me that this city needs to take a clear cut direction along with other suburbs in this regard.
How we're going to deal with that because this is really a metropolitan, state legislation issue.
And for us to willy nilly, run around looking for stats to compare against their stats, I'm not
sure if that's the direction for this type of thing. Or there's no question in my mind that there
is no intention or conspiracy going on here but, there are viable issues of discussion in
regards to barriers against income. And yes it's true. I mean you will, there's plenty of cars
at the Auto Show that I looked at, I can't afford them. And we can discuss the philosophy
forever, but I think certainly there should be a coordinated city response to this based on
hopefully civic input, professional input on how we can address the issues that are brought
up.
Scott: One idea, I think we have the PUD as a good tool and something that popped into my
1 mind when we were looking at Al Klingelhutz' development and he brought up where there
was, we had some concerns with density. Since there are no federal or local dollars, and I
don't see the City of Chanhassen bonding to, for the purpose of affordable housing, one way
' we can take a look at it is, I choose to use the carrot approach and one of the things that we
.:
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
might be able to do in a PUD is if somebody does come in with something that's too dense,
we can say hey. This is what our expectations are. These are the, and we can come up with
dollar amounts as far as what's affordable. Not relative to what's affordable in Chanhassen
but what's affordable in the metro area. And just say okay. What we are going to allow you
to do Mr. or Mrs. Developer is, our ordinance says that this is the density. However, if you
put in, scattered throughout this large development, x number of units that will be let for no
more than x, we will allow you to put an additional building, the revenue and profit from this
will offset what you're not getting here. We gain because we get affordable housing. They
gain because they get additional income and get the break so I think if we can play some
games with density.
Farmakes: But is that how the animal works? It would seem to me that the animal works,
the developer's going to build the house, even substandard to what we currently have, for a
dollar in return. If an applicant comes to that house, the applicant is going to have to be
subsidized in such a way, either to buy into the mortgage or on a monthly basis to pay off the
principle and interest. At least this is how some religious organizations do this in
supplementing housing, "affordable housing ". And it depends on which category you're using
according to the State government. There's very low income. There's low income. There's
like 20 different categories that they have and the issue revolves around a rather technical
requirements. My point being is that many of the approaches that have been to this are site
scattered and when you say PUD, you're not necessarily talking site scattered. Or at least the
ones I've seen ... where 50% of them are substandard. So if you're looking at that as a vehicle
to come up with stats for affordable, if the word you're using. Low income is the word I'm
using or moderate or upper moderate or whatever you come up with. But the problem that
you are going to incur is, if you subsidize that, who's going to subsidize it? You're saying
the builder in some way and it seems to me that in commerce you're not going to find the
builder subsidize anything. It will be more or less I believe, it will wind up being
government in some way, shape or form. To come up with some equity situation.
Scott: Well, can I have a motion to adjourn.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CSC
f
r.